You are welcome, it 's my honor. I think the PR <https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/139> just remove murmur3, that should express what I want.
On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 9:53 PM Zoltan Ivanfi <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Junjie, > > Thanks for the update and also for your endruance in going through this > tedious process in order to add bloom filtering to Parquet. > > I understand that your proposal is to go forward with xxHash instead of the > eralier murmur3, which you suggest to deprecate. Since the murmur3 hash was > never released, I think it could be completely removed from the spec > instead of just getting deprecated. What is your opinion on this? > > Thanks, > > Zoltan > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 3:31 PM 俊杰陈 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I see, thanks for guiding on this. > > > > Per discussion in this thread and some investigation about changes on > > current java and c++ implementation, and I think that is not hard to > > handle. So I propose to use xxHash (the XXH64 version) as the default > > hash strategy and deprecate previous murmur3 hash. > > > > I will update vote thread as well to make it clearer to all. > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 6:08 PM Zoltan Ivanfi <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Junjie, > > > > > > I think the vote is ambigous in its current form (can people vote on > one > > > option only or can they vote on both?) and has a low chance of getting > > > votes in general because it's not a yes/no question but a > > > choose-an-approach question instead. I think most contributors would > > accept > > > the hash chosen based on a community discussion but would be reluctant > to > > > make that choice themselves in the form a vote because it requires a > much > > > deeper dive into the technical intricacies involved. The committers are > > > experienced in the parquet code base but may not be as experienced in > > bloom > > > filters as you are. > > > > > > In my opinion, to get bloom filtering into parquet-mr, you should > > convince > > > the committers that the proposal is viable by addressing their concerns > > > (which I believe you have done), and not by delegating the task of > making > > > choices to them. I would suggest that you propose which one (or both) > of > > > the hashes should be included, summarize your motivations in this > thread > > > and if you don't get any objections for a day or two, call a YES/NO > vote > > > for that specific proposal in a separate thread. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Zoltan > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 3:52 AM 俊杰陈 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Any thoughts from other committers and developers? > > > > > > > > I 'd like to start a vote firstly, you could either provide your > input > > here > > > > or on vote thread. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 8:20 PM Zoltan Ivanfi <[email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > I would like to clarify one point of my previous e-mail: While I > > reasoned > > > > > that for compressions and encodings we should avoid picking > > algorithms > > > > > superseded by better ones, I also reasoned that for bloom filters > we > > do > > > > not > > > > > necessarily have to be as strict, because a reader with missing > > > > > implementation will still be able to read data from files that > > contain > > > > > unsupported bloom filter data structures. > > > > > > > > > > Personally I'm fine with moving forward with the current hash > > proposal, > > > > > even if the chosen algorithm is not considered to be the best of > its > > > > class. > > > > > > > > > > Br, > > > > > > > > > > Zoltan > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 11:02 PM Jim Apple <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 2019/06/28 16:43:23, Ryan Blue <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > I agree with Zoltan. Since we want to ensure compatibility, it > > would > > > > be > > > > > > > better to choose the best option now instead of making everyone > > > > support > > > > > > two > > > > > > > options forever. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd guess there probably isn't a single best option. I suspect > > there's > > > > a > > > > > > tradeoff between ease of implementation and speed, for instance, > > since > > > > I > > > > > > expect it's easy to find an MD5 library in most programming > > languages > > > > and > > > > > > operating systems, yet MD5 is very slow compared to > > non-cryptographic > > > > > hash > > > > > > functions designed for speed like xxhash. > > > > > > > > > > > > There's also a significant amount of variability across processor > > > > > families > > > > > > (64-bit multiply-shift in ARM vs x86-64) or even different > > versions of > > > > > the > > > > > > same processor family (CLHash in Haswell vs. Sandy Lake). There > are > > > > also > > > > > > quality tradeoffs that depend on the average bye length of the > > input > > > > (FNV > > > > > > vs vhash) or how much L1 cache the user wants to use for the hash > > > > > function > > > > > > (tabulation hashing vs. multiply-shift). > > > > > > > > > > > > To deal with this level of ambiguity, I'd suggest that v1 should > > > > include > > > > > a > > > > > > hash function that works well for certain common environments. As > > far > > > > as > > > > > I > > > > > > know, murmur and xxhash would both fit that bill. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Thanks & Best Regards > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Thanks & Best Regards > > > -- Thanks & Best Regards
