To me there is no fundamental reason to not allow STRING or ENUM on
FIXED_LEN_BYTE_ARRAY.
I think historically, the type FIXED_LEN_BYTE_ARRAY was added later.
Now, the question is more whether someone wants to spend the effort to add
support for it. I agree with Micah it doesn't look like a lot of work.

On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 8:35 AM Gang Wu <ust...@gmail.com> wrote:

> FYI, both parquet-cpp [1] and parquet-java [2] do not allow FLBA.
>
> [1]
>
> https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/eec6f17c8879b469dc3370dad4a7f68f11705a6b/cpp/src/parquet/types.cc#L829-L842
> [2]
>
> https://github.com/apache/parquet-java/blob/fbe13d89ae4193be12c164d4bb5342c5eba3963f/parquet-column/src/main/java/org/apache/parquet/schema/Types.java#L443-L447
>
> Best,
> Gang
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 11:53 AM Micah Kornfield <emkornfi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > My instinct says "No", but others may have a different interpretation.
> >
> >
> > This is also my instinct, I think we should check validation in
> > Parquet-java and parquet-cpp to see if they are in agreement on the
> matter
> > and then make a decision from there.  It doesn't seem too onerous to
> > support FLBA as a String though if necessary?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Micah
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 12:15 PM Ed Seidl <etse...@live.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > > While discussing PARQUET-2485 a question was raised about the STRING
> > > annotation [1]. The current wording in the specification is "|STRING|
> > > may only be used to annotate the binary primitive type"; PARQUET-2485
> > > would change that to "|STRING| may only be used to annotate the
> > > |BYTE_ARRAY| primitive type". The question is, can FIXED_LEN_BYTE_ARRAY
> > > also be annotated with STRING? My instinct says "No", but others may
> > > have a different interpretation.
> > >
> > > Are there any strong opinions in the community? Are there any
> > > implementations that allow fixed length strings?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Ed
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/251#discussion_r1635669939
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to