On Thu, 3 Jul 2025 17:22:27 +0100 Raphael Taylor-Davies <r.taylordav...@googlemail.com.INVALID> wrote: > Hi, > > I may be misunderstanding something, but it appears that the motivation > for this effort is that the current interval type represents a superset > of the functionality required by ANSI SQL, and therefore can cause > compatibility problems for some databases that only support the minimum > required by ANSI SQL?
While I understand the desire to be able to represent all values allowable in ANSI SQL, I really don't understand why our types should not be allowed to represent any values *outside* of the range allowed in ANSI SQL. Please let's be mindful that Parquet is not useful only for SQL-type workloads. Besides, ANSI SQL itself might evolve and we don't want to add another Interval type in a few years because the one we're current specifying ends up too tight. (if some people want to make sure that values don't fall outside the ANSI SQL range, they can write a validation pass for it; no need to burden the Parquet *format* with such contraints) Regards Antoine.
