As someone who's primarily involved in the Parquet C++ implementation, I definitely agree with this.
Regards Antoine. On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 19:36:33 +0200 Gábor Szádovszky <ga...@apache.org> wrote: > The potential introduction of the primitive type INT128 came up related to > the Interval type discussions. I think it is an independent topic, so let > me start a new thread about it. > > Maybe, I'm too Java oriented but I cannot see much difference between > FLBA[16] and a new primitive containing 16 bytes. We can define any byte > ordering for a specific logical type on top of FLBA[16] as well as any > value ordering related to that type. We may also easily extend int specific > encodings to FLBA, then it is up to the implementation to choose that > encoding for specific logical types. > > From implementation point of view, in Java, since we don't have a 16 byte > primitive, we would represent INT128 the same way as we do in the case of > FLBA[16]. > Other languages choose whatever in-memory representation they want to > handle FLBA[16] or especially the related logical type. > > What do you think? > > Cheers, > Gabor >
