I would like to bump this thread as it came up again on the parquet sync call today
Specifically, it seems like there is increasing interest in adding new encodings to the Parquet, so getting consensus on what that process looks like and what is required is more important. If you are interested in this topic, please leave comments on the Google Doc[1] or reply to this email chain. Thank you, Andrew [1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qGDnOyoNyPvcN4FCRhbZGAvp0SfewlWo-WVsai5IKUo/edit?tab=t.0 On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 2:42 AM Micah Kornfield <emkornfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > I wrote up a long overdue draft > < > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qGDnOyoNyPvcN4FCRhbZGAvp0SfewlWo-WVsai5IKUo/edit?tab=t.0 > > > [1] > on how we can move forward with additional features (it provides some > proposed requirements on both consuming third-party code, as well as some > more specific guidance on new encodings, and some orthogonal work that > would be nice to see). > > The doc still lacks some details, and might be too opinionated in places > but I think it serves as a good basis for conversation (and at least gets > me out of the critical path for evolving Parquet). > > I'm very excited to start moving forward with improvements. > > Thanks, > Micah > > [1] > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qGDnOyoNyPvcN4FCRhbZGAvp0SfewlWo-WVsai5IKUo/edit?tab=t.0 >
