[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PARQUET-1065?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16318547#comment-16318547
]
Zoltan Ivanfi commented on PARQUET-1065:
----------------------------------------
[~lv], we can not change the ordering for the existing {{min}} and {{max}}
fields for int96 timestamps, because statistics were already written for them
according to the wrong byte order.
We do not want to define a new int96 ordering for the new {{min-value}} and
{{max-value}} fields either, because:
# We can distuingish between a timestamps stored in an int96 that requires
little-endian ordering and an actual int96 that requires big-endian ordering.
# Introducing little-endian ordering would put an unnecessary burden on the
implementors for the sake of a legacy type that we would like to get rid of.
> 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)
