Call for voting again.

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 1:17 PM 俊杰陈 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Dear Parquet developers
>
> We need more votes, please help to vote on this.
>
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 3:42 PM Gabor Szadovszky
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > After getting in PARQUET-1625 I vote again for having bloom filter spec and
> > the thrift file update as is in parquet-format master.
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 3:23 PM 俊杰陈 <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks Gabor, It's never too late to make it better. We don't have to
> > > run it in a hurry, it has been developed for a long time yet.:)
> > >
> > > The thrift file is indeed a bit lag behind the spec. As the spec
> > > defined, the bloom filter data is stored near the footer which means
> > > we don't have to handle it like the page. Therefore, I just opened a
> > > jira to remove bloom_filter_page_header in PageHeader structure, while
> > > the BloomFitlerHeader is kept intentionally for convenience. Since the
> > > spec and the thrift should be aligned with each other eventually, so
> > > the vote target is both of them.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 7:48 PM Gabor Szadovszky
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Junjie,
> > > >
> > > > Sorry for bringing up this a bit late but I have some problems with the
> > > > format update. The parquet.thrift file is updated to have the bloom
> > > filters
> > > > as a page (just as dictionaries and data pages). Meanwhile, the spec
> > > > (BloomFilter.md) says that the bloom filter is stored near the footer.
> > > So,
> > > > if the bloom filter is not part of the row-groups (like column indexes) 
> > > > I
> > > > would not add it as a page. See the struct ColumnIndex in the thrift
> > > file.
> > > > This struct is not referenced anywhere in it only declared. It was done
> > > > this way because we don't parse it in the same way as we parse the 
> > > > pages.
> > > >
> > > > Currently, I am not 100% sure about the target of this vote. If it is a
> > > > vote about adding bloom filters in general then it is a +1 (binding). If
> > > it
> > > > is about adding the bloom filters to parquet-format as is then, it is a
> > > -1
> > > > (binding) until we fix the issue above.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Gabor
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 11:45 AM Gidon Gershinsky <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1 (non-binding)
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 12:08 PM Zoltan Ivanfi 
> > > > > <[email protected]
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > +1 (binding)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 9:57 AM 俊杰陈 <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dear Parquet developers
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'd like to resume this vote, you can start to vote now. Thanks 
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > your
> > > > > > time.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 9:29 PM 俊杰陈 <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I see, will resume this next week.  Thanks.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 5:26 PM Zoltan Ivanfi
> > > > > <[email protected]>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Junjie,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Since there are ongoing improvements addressing review
> > > comments, I
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > hold off with the vote for a few more days until the
> > > specification
> > > > > > settles.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Br,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Zoltan
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 9:32 AM 俊杰陈 <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Parquet committers and developers
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > We are waiting for your important ballot:)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 10:21 AM 俊杰陈 <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Yes, there are some public benchmark results, such as the
> > > > > > official
> > > > > > > > > > > benchmark from xxhash site (http://www.xxhash.com/) and
> > > > > > published
> > > > > > > > > > > comparison from smhasher project
> > > > > > > > > > > (https://github.com/rurban/smhasher/).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 5:25 AM Wes McKinney <
> > > > > [email protected]>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Do you have any benchmark data to support the choice of
> > > hash
> > > > > > function?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 8:41 AM 俊杰陈 <[email protected]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Parquet developers
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > To simplify the voting, I 'd like to update voting
> > > content
> > > > > > to the
> > > > > > > > > > spec
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with xxHash hash strategy. Now you can reply with +1
> > > or -1.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your participation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 10:23 AM 俊杰陈 <
> > > [email protected]>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Parquet developers
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Parquet Bloom filter has been developed for a while,
> > > per
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > discussion on the mail list, it's time to call a vote for
> > > spec to
> > > > > > move
> > > > > > > > > > forward. The current spec can be found at
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/blob/master/BloomFilter.md.
> > > > > > > > > > There are some different options about the internal hash
> > > choice
> > > > > of
> > > > > > Bloom
> > > > > > > > > > filter and the PR is for that concern.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So I 'd like to propose to vote the spec + hash
> > > option,
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > example:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 to spec and xxHash
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 to spec and murmur3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please help to vote, any feedback is also welcome in
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > discussion thread.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks & Best Regards
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks & Best Regards
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks & Best Regards
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks & Best Regards
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Thanks & Best Regards
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Thanks & Best Regards
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Thanks & Best Regards
> > >
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks & Best Regards



-- 
Thanks & Best Regards

Reply via email to