OK to summarize what I think the current proposal for interval type is two new logical types:
1. YearMonth interval annotates an int32. 2. DurationNanos annotates an int64. There is now a separate thread, on int128 vs FLBA. Given the current proposal I don't think this blocks anything. The main difficulty in adding a newly annotated physical type would be API design allowing a potentially wider type in the future. I think this is tractable but any blockers could be discovered in the implementation phase? > +1 to FLBA and VLBA. What would BIT represent? Could you elaborate I think the intent would be boolean. On Wednesday, July 9, 2025, Alkis Evlogimenos <alkis.evlogime...@databricks.com.invalid> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 11:05 AM Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org> wrote: > > > But if we were designing a new Parquet format from scratch, I would > > definitely advocate for a reduced set of 3 physical types: BIT, FLBA > > and VLBA. > > > > +1 to FLBA and VLBA. What would BIT represent? Could you elaborate? >
