[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PARQUET-1065?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16207226#comment-16207226
]
Zoltan Ivanfi commented on PARQUET-1065:
----------------------------------------
The bytes of a timestamp are stored in the opposite order than the one used for
comparing int96-s, therefore comparison won't give correct results. We could
add the correct byte order to the specification, but that would not work if one
tried to store actual integers instead of timestamps. We also have to take
backwards compatibility into consideration.
> 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)
