[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PARQUET-1065?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16206424#comment-16206424 ]
Deepak Majeti commented on PARQUET-1065: ---------------------------------------- If we treat Int96 as a primitive data type, then we must compare Int96(little-endian) in a reverse byte order. Then we will check the most significant bits first correct? > Deprecate type-defined sort ordering for INT96 type > --------------------------------------------------- > > Key: PARQUET-1065 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PARQUET-1065 > Project: Parquet > Issue Type: Bug > Reporter: Zoltan Ivanfi > Assignee: Zoltan Ivanfi > > [parquet.thrift in > parquet-format|https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/blob/041708da1af52e7cb9288c331b542aa25b68a2b6/src/main/thrift/parquet.thrift#L37] > defines the the sort order for INT96 to be signed. > [ParquetMetadataConverter.java in > parquet-mr|https://github.com/apache/parquet-mr/blob/352b906996f392030bfd53b93e3cf4adb78d1a55/parquet-hadoop/src/main/java/org/apache/parquet/format/converter/ParquetMetadataConverter.java#L422] > uses unsigned ordering instead. In practice, INT96 is only used for > timestamps and neither signed nor unsigned ordering of the numeric values is > correct for this purpose. For this reason, the INT96 sort order should be > specified as undefined. > (As a special case, min == max signifies that all values are the same, and > can be considered valid even for undefined orderings.) -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.14#64029)