I probably need to be taught more about this, but isn't the only difference from the Iceberg perspective whether or not to wrap min max values? I thought the actual projection encoding was being saved in table properties in either case?
On Wed, Dec 4, 2024 at 8:18 PM Gang Wu <ust...@gmail.com> wrote: > Update: > > The Iceberg community has discussed and agreed on splitting geometry and > geography types and focusing on the geometry type [1] at this point. We > have also modified the Parquet PR [2] to reflect this. Please take a look > and let me know what you think. If there is no objection, we will start a > formal vote to accept the new geometry logical type and release it in the > parquet-format version 2.11.0. > > [1] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/10981 > [2] https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/240 > > Best, > Gang > > On Sun, Sep 8, 2024 at 12:30 AM Gang Wu <ust...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Update: > > > > We are working with Apache Iceberg, Apache Sedona, and GeoParquet > > communities to finalize the spec addition of Geometry type [1]. Two PoC > > implementations [2][3] are on the way with the help from the Apache > Sedona > > community. > > > > Now the spec change has been stable and the implementations are close to > > the finish line. In the meantime, Apache Iceberg is waiting for the > Parquet > > side before adding the geometry support to its v3 spec. I want to > encourage > > everyone to take a review on the spec and the PoCs. A vote thread will > > be sent to finalize the process. > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/240 > > [2] https://github.com/apache/parquet-java/pull/2971 > > [3] https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/43977 > > > > Thanks, > > Gang > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 4:14 PM Gang Wu <ust...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> Apache Iceberg community is proposing to add geospatial support [1]. It > >> would > >> be good if Apache Parquet can support native geometry type to implement > >> more > >> efficient encoding, statistics and filtering. Therefore, I'd like to > >> propose a format > >> change to add a new geometry logical type: [2]. It is still in a very > >> early stage and > >> I'm working with Apache Iceberg community and GeoParquet community to > >> polish > >> the design. Hopefully this design will be a good starting point to > >> support geospatial > >> features from the file format level and be interoperable to more table > >> formats and > >> popular query engines in the future. Any feedback is welcomed! > >> > >> [1] > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iVFbrRNEzZl8tDcZC81GFt01QJkLJsI9E2NBOt21IRI > >> [2] https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/240 > >> > >> Best, > >> Gang > >> > >> >
