I agree that "row" is a more widespread terminology while "record" can be a bit head-scratching.
Regards Antoine. On Wed, 29 May 2024 05:49:22 -0400 Andrew Lamb <andrewlam...@gmail.com> wrote: > In the context of my PR trying to encode the consensus that records can't > span page boundaries[1], Antoine brought up the excellent point[2] that the > format[3] seems to use the terms "records" and "rows" to refer to the same > concept. > > I agree it would clarify the spec to use the same terminology throughout. > Given there are several fields named `num_rows` I propose changing > parquet.thrift to use the term "row" throughout. > > I can make another PR to do so if this seems like a good idea. > > Andrew > (p.s the PR[1] is still waiting on some more review and merging :pray:) > > [1] https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/244 > [2] https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/244#discussion_r1617320495 > [3] > https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/blob/master/src/main/thrift/parquet.thrift >
