Thanks, Jan. I also went through the combined proposal and it looks mostly good to me.
> First of all, to make it quick: Yes, the solution of having nan_counts *and* total order, which was brought up multiple times, does work and solves more cases than just either of both. Great, then we have a solution for both filtering use cases and for moving ahead with total order. And thanks to Andrew for suggesting this as well on the second PR. I think this also looks like this is something that Orson is okay with given his comments on the latest PR. Is there anyone against the combined approach? I don't see a big downside for anyone. It is compatible with previous stats rules, has a NaN count, and allows using either type-specific order or total order. Assuming that this satisfies the big objections, I think we should wait for a few days to make sure everyone has time to check out the new PR and then vote to adopt it. Ryan On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 6:03 AM Andrew Lamb <andrewlam...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you Jan -- I read through the new combined proposal, and I thought it > looks good and addresses the feedback so far. I left some small style > suggestions, but nothing that is required from my perspective > > > > On Sat, Aug 9, 2025 at 9:07 AM Jan Finis <jpfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hey Ryan, > > > > Thanks for chiming in. First of all, to make it quick: Yes, the solution > of > > having nan_counts *and* total order, which was brought up multiple times, > > does work and solves more cases than just either of both. > > > > I strongly prefer continuing to discuss the merits of these approaches > > > rather than trying to decide with a vote. > > > > > > In theory, I agree that it isn't good to silence a discussion by just > > voting for one possible solution and technical issues should be > discussed. > > However, please note that we have been circling on this for over two > years > > now, including an extended discussion that brought up all arguments > > multiple times. This is in stark contrast to the > > speed with which you guys work on the Iceberg spec, for example. There, > you > > also do not discuss the merits of various solutions for multiple years. > You > > just pick one and merge it after a *reasonable* time of discussion. > > If you had the speed we currently have here, nothing would get done. > Thus, > > I see this as a clear case of *"the perfect is the enemy of the good"*. > > Yes, we can continue looking for the perfect solution, > > but that will likely lead to keeping us at the status quo, which is the > > worst of them all. > > > > That being said, I'm also happy to create a PR which does both total > order > > and NaN counts; after all, I just want the issue solved and all these > > solutions are better than the status quo. > > > > *As this was now suggest by at least three people, I guess it's worth > > doing, so here you go:https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/514 > > <https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/514>* > > > > With this, we should have PRs covering most of the solution space. > > (I'm refusing to create a PR with negative and positive nan_counts; > > nan_counts + total order has to suffice; the complexity madness has to > stop > > somewhere) > > I still believe that there was an amount of people who already found > > nan_counts too complex and therefore wanted IEEE total order, and these > > people may not like putting on extra complexity, > > but let's see, maybe some have also changed their opinion in the > meantime. > > > > > > *Given all this, we can also first do an informal vote where everyone can > > vote for which of the three their favorite would be.Maybe a clear > favorite > > will emerge and then we can vote on this one.* > > > > But of course, we can also take some weeks to discuss the three > solutions, > > now that we have PRs for all of them. I just hope this won't make us > > continue for another 2 years, or an > > infinite stalemate where each solution is vetoed by a PMC member. > > (Sorry for becoming a bit cynical here; I have just spent way too much > time > > of my life with double statistics at this point ;) ...) > > > > > > Cheers, > > Jan > > > > Am Fr., 8. Aug. 2025 um 23:38 Uhr schrieb Ryan Blue <rdb...@gmail.com>: > > > > > Regarding the process for this, I strongly prefer continuing to discuss > > the > > > merits of these approaches rather than trying to decide with a vote. I > > > don't think it is a good practice to use a vote to decide on a > technical > > > direction. There are very few situations that warrant it and I don't > > think > > > that this is one of them. While this issue has been open for a long > time, > > > that appears to be the result of it not being anyone's top priority > > rather > > > than indecision. > > > > > > For the technical merits of these approaches, I think that we can find > a > > > middle ground. I agree with Jan that when working with sorted values, > we > > > need to know how NaN values were handled and that requires using a > > > well-defined order that includes NaN and its variations (because we > > should > > > not normalize). Using NaN count is not sufficient for ordering rows. > > > > > > Gijs also brings up good points about how NaN values show up in actual > > > datasets: not just when used in place of null, but also as the result > of > > > normal calculations on abnormal data, like `sqrt(-4.0)` or `log(-1.0)`. > > > Both of those present problems when mixed with valid data because of > the > > > stats "poisoning" problem, where the range of valid data is usable > until > > a > > > single NaN is mixed in. > > > > > > Another issue is that NaN is error-prone because "regular" comparison > is > > > always false: > > > ``` > > > Math.log(-1.0) >= 2 => FALSE > > > Math.log(-1.0) < 2 => FALSE > > > 2 > Math.log(-1.0) => FALSE > > > ``` > > > > > > As a result, Iceberg doesn't trust NaN values as either lower or upper > > > bounds because we don't want to go back to the code that produced the > > value > > > to see what the comparison order was to determine whether NaN values go > > > before or after others. > > > > > > Total order solves the second issue in theory, but regular comparison > is > > > prevalent and not obvious to developers. And it also doesn't help when > > NaN > > > is used instead of null. So using total order is not sufficient for > data > > > skipping. > > > > > > I think the right compromise is to use `min`, `max`, and `nan_count` > for > > > data skipping stats (where min and max cannot be NaN) and total > ordering > > > for sorting values. That satisfies the data skipping use cases and also > > > gives us an ordering of unaltered values that we can reason about. > > > > > > Does anyone think that doesn't work? > > > > > > Ryan > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 1, 2025 at 8:57 AM Gang Wu <ust...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks Jan for your endless effort on this! > > > > > > > > I'm in favor of simplicity and generalism. I think we have already > > > debated > > > > a lot > > > > for `nan_count` in [1] and [2] is the reflection of those > discussions. > > > > Therefore > > > > I am inclined to start a vote for [2] unless there is a significantly > > > > better > > > > proposal. > > > > > > > > I would suggest everyone interested in this discussion to attend the > > > > scheduled > > > > sync on Aug 6th (detailed below) to spread the word to the broader > > > > community. > > > > If we can get a consensus on [2], I can help start the vote and move > > > > forward. > > > > > > > > *Apache Parquet Community Sync Wednesday, August 6 · 10:00 – 11:00am > * > > > > *Time zone: America/Los_Angeles* > > > > *Google Meet joining info Video call link: > > > > https://meet.google.com/bhe-rvan-qjk > > > > <https://meet.google.com/bhe-rvan-qjk> * > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/196 > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/221 > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Gang > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 1, 2025 at 6:16 PM Jan Finis <jpfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Gijs, > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for bringing up concrete points, I'm happy to discuss > them > > in > > > > > detail. > > > > > > > > > > NaNs are less common in the SQL world than in the DataFrame world > > where > > > > > > NaNs were used for a long time to represent missing values. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You could transcode between NULL to NaN before reading and writing > to > > > > > Parquet. You basically mention yourself that NaNs were used for > > missing > > > > > values, i.e., what is commonly a NULL, which wasn't available. So, > > > > > semantically, transcoding to NULL would even be the sane thing to > do. > > > > Yes, > > > > > that will cost you some cycles, but should be a rather lightweight > > > > > operation in comparison to most other operations, so I would argue > > that > > > > it > > > > > won't totally ruin your performance. Similarly, why should Parquet > > play > > > > > along with a "hack" that was done in other frameworks due to > > > shortcomings > > > > > of those frameworks? So from a philosophical point of view, I think > > > > > supporting NaNs better is the wrong thing to do. Rather, we should > > be a > > > > > forcing function to align others to better behavior, so appling a > bit > > > of > > > > > force might in the long run make people use NULLs also in > DataFrames. > > > > > > > > > > Of course, your argument also goes into the direction of > pragmatism: > > > If a > > > > > large part of the data science world uses NaNs to encode missing > > > values, > > > > > then maybe Parquet should accept this de-facto standard rather than > > > > > fighting it. That is indeed a valid point. The weight of it is > > > debatable > > > > > and my personal conclusion is that it's still not worth it, as you > > can > > > > > transcode between NULLs and NaNs, but I do agree with its validity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since the proposal phrases it as a goal to work "regardless of how > > they > > > > > > order NaN w.r.t. other values" this statement feels out-of-place > to > > > me. > > > > > > Most hardware and most people don't care about total ordering and > > > > needing > > > > > > to take it into account while filtering using statistics seems > like > > > > > > preferring the special case instead of the common case. Almost > > noone > > > > > > filters for specific NaN value bit-patterns. SQL engines that > don't > > > > have > > > > > > IEEE total ordering as their default ordering for floats will > also > > > need > > > > > to > > > > > > do more special handling for this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I disagree with the conclusion this statement draws. The current > > > > behavior, > > > > > and nan_counts without total ordering, pose a real problem here, > even > > > for > > > > > engines that don't care about bit patterns. I do agree that most > > > database > > > > > engines, including the one I'm working on, do not care about bit > > > patterns > > > > > and/or sign bits. However, how can our database engine know whether > > the > > > > > writer of a Parquet file saw it the same way? It can't. Therefore, > it > > > > > cannot know whether a writer, for example, ordered NaNs before or > > after > > > > all > > > > > other numbers, or maybe ordered them by sign bit. So, if our > database > > > > > engine now sees a float column in sorting columns, it cannot apply > > any > > > > > optimization without a lot of special casing, as it doesn't know > > > whether > > > > > NaNs will be before all other values, after all other values, or > > maybe > > > > > both, depending on sign bit. It could apply contrived logic that > > tries > > > to > > > > > infer where NaNs were placed from the NaN counts of the first and > > last > > > > > page, but doing so will be a lot of ugly code that also feels to be > > in > > > > the > > > > > wrong place. I.e., I don't want to need to load pages or the page > > > index, > > > > > just to reason about a sort order. > > > > > > > > > > SQL engines that don't have > > > > > > IEEE total ordering as their default ordering for floats will > also > > > need > > > > > to > > > > > > do more special handling for this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This code, which I would indeed need to write for our engine, is > > > > comparably > > > > > trivial. Simply choose the largest possible bit pattern as > comparison > > > for > > > > > upper bounds filtering for NaN, and the smallest possible bit > pattern > > > for > > > > > lower bounds. It's not more than a few lines of code that check > > > whether a > > > > > filter is NaN and then replace its value with the highest/lowest > NaN > > > bit > > > > > pattern. It is similarly trivial to the special casing I need to do > > > with > > > > > nan_counts, and it is way more trivial than the extra code I would > > need > > > > to > > > > > write for sorting columns, as depicted above. > > > > > > > > > > From a Polars perspective, having a `nan_count` and defining what > > > > > > happens to the `min` and `max` statistics when a page contains > only > > > > NaNs > > > > > is > > > > > > enough to allow for all predicate filtering. I think, but correct > > me > > > > if I > > > > > > am wrong, this is also enough for all SQL engines that don't use > > > total > > > > > > ordering. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not fully enough, as depicted above. Sorting columns would > still > > > not > > > > > work properly. > > > > > > > > > > As for ways forward, I propose merging the `nan_count` and `sort > > > > ordering` > > > > > > proposals into one to make one proposal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Note that the initial reason for proposing IEEE total order was > that > > > > people > > > > > in the discussion threads found nan_counts to be too complex and > too > > > much > > > > > of an undeserving special case (re-read the discussion in the > initial > > > PR > > > > > <https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/196> to see the > > > > > rationales). > > > > > So merging both together would go totally against the spirit of why > > > IEEE > > > > > total order was proposed. While it has further upsides, the main > > reason > > > > was > > > > > indeed to *not have* nan_counts. If now the proposal would even go > to > > > > > positive and negative nan counts (i.e., even more complexity), this > > > would > > > > > go 180 degrees into the opposite direction of why people wanted > total > > > > order > > > > > in the first place. > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > > > Am Do., 31. Juli 2025 um 23:23 Uhr schrieb Gijs Burghoorn > > > > > <g...@polars.tech.invalid>: > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Jan and others, > > > > > > > > > > > > First, let me preface by saying I am quite new here. So I > apologize > > > if > > > > > > there is some other better way to bring up these concerns. I > > > understand > > > > > it > > > > > > is very annoying to come in at the 11th hour and start bringing > up > > a > > > > > bunch > > > > > > of concerns, but I would also like this to be done right. A > > colleague > > > > of > > > > > > mine brought up some concerns and alternative approaches in the > > > GitHub > > > > > > thread; I will file some of the concerns here as a response. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Treating NaNs so specially is giving them attention they don't > > > > deserve. > > > > > > Most data sets do not contain NaNs. If a use case really requires > > > them > > > > > and > > > > > > needs filtering to ignore them, they can store NULL instead, or > > > encode > > > > > them > > > > > > differently. I would prefer the average case over the special > case > > > > here. > > > > > > > > > > > > NaNs are less common in the SQL world than in the DataFrame world > > > where > > > > > > NaNs were used for a long time to represent missing values. They > > > still > > > > > > exist with different canonical representations and different sign > > > > bits. I > > > > > > agree it might not be correct semantically, but sadly that is the > > > world > > > > > we > > > > > > deal with. NumPy and Numba do not have missing data > functionality, > > > > people > > > > > > use NaNs there, and people definitely use that in their > analytical > > > > > > dataflows. Another point that was brought up in the GH discussion > > was > > > > > "what > > > > > > about infinity? You could argue that having infinity in > statistics > > is > > > > > > similarly unuseful as it's too wide of a bound". I would argue > that > > > > > > infinity is very different as there is no discussion on what the > > > > ordering > > > > > > or pattern of infinity is. Everyone agrees that `min(1.0, inf, > > -inf) > > > == > > > > > > -inf` and each infinity only has a single bit pattern. > > > > > > > > > > > > > It gives a defined order to every bit pattern and thus yields a > > > total > > > > > > order, mathematically speaking, which has value by itself. With > NaN > > > > > counts, > > > > > > it was still undefined how different bit patterns of NaNs were > > > supposed > > > > > to > > > > > > be ordered, whether NaN was allowed to have a sign bit, etc., > > risking > > > > > that > > > > > > different engines could come to different results while filtering > > or > > > > > > sorting values within a file. > > > > > > > > > > > > Since the proposal phrases it as a goal to work "regardless of > how > > > they > > > > > > order NaN w.r.t. other values" this statement feels out-of-place > to > > > me. > > > > > > Most hardware and most people don't care about total ordering and > > > > needing > > > > > > to take it into account while filtering using statistics seems > like > > > > > > preferring the special case instead of the common case. Almost > > noone > > > > > > filters for specific NaN value bit-patterns. SQL engines that > don't > > > > have > > > > > > IEEE total ordering as their default ordering for floats will > also > > > need > > > > > to > > > > > > do more special handling for this. > > > > > > > > > > > > I also agree with my colleague that doing an approach that is 50% > > of > > > > the > > > > > > way there will make the barrier to improving it to what it > actually > > > > > should > > > > > > be later on much higher. > > > > > > > > > > > > As for ways forward, I propose merging the `nan_count` and `sort > > > > > ordering` > > > > > > proposals into one to make one proposal, as they are linked > > together, > > > > and > > > > > > moving forward with one without knowing what will happen to the > > other > > > > > seems > > > > > > unwise. From a Polars perspective, having a `nan_count` and > > defining > > > > what > > > > > > happens to the `min` and `max` statistics when a page contains > only > > > > NaNs > > > > > is > > > > > > enough to allow for all predicate filtering. I think, but correct > > me > > > > if I > > > > > > am wrong, this is also enough for all SQL engines that don't use > > > total > > > > > > ordering. But if you want to be impartial to the engine's > > > > floating-point > > > > > > ordering and allow engines with total ordering to do inequality > > > filters > > > > > > when `nan_count > 0` you would need a `positive_nan_count` and a > > > > > > `negative_nan_count`. I understand the downside with Thrift > > > complexity, > > > > > but > > > > > > introducing another sort order is also adding complexity just in > a > > > > > > different place. > > > > > > > > > > > > I would really like to see this move forward, so I hope these > > > concerns > > > > > help > > > > > > move it forward towards a solution that works for everyone. > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > > > Gijs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 7:46 PM Andrew Lamb < > > andrewlam...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would also be in favor of starting a vote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 11:23 AM Jan Finis <jpfi...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As the author of both the IEEE754 total order > > > > > > > > <https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/221> PR and > the > > > > > earlier > > > > > > > PR > > > > > > > > that basically proposed `nan_count` > > > > > > > > <https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/196>, my > > current > > > > vote > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > be for IEEE754 total order. > > > > > > > > Consequently, I would like to request a formal vote for the > PR > > > > > > > introducing > > > > > > > > IEEE754 total order ( > > > > > https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/221 > > > > > > ), > > > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > that is possible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My Rationales: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It's conceptually simpler. It's easier to explain. It's > > > based > > > > on > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > IEEE-standardized order predicate. > > > > > > > > - There are already multiple implementations showing > > > > feasibility. > > > > > > This > > > > > > > > will likely make the adoption quicker. > > > > > > > > - It gives a defined order to every bit pattern and thus > > > yields > > > > a > > > > > > > total > > > > > > > > order, mathematically speaking, which has value by itself. > > > With > > > > > NaN > > > > > > > > counts, > > > > > > > > it was still undefined how different bit patterns of NaNs > > were > > > > > > > supposed > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > be ordered, whether NaN was allowed to have a sign bit, > > etc., > > > > > > risking > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > different engines could come to different results while > > > > filtering > > > > > or > > > > > > > > sorting values within a file. > > > > > > > > - It also solves sort order completely. With nan_counts > > only, > > > it > > > > > is > > > > > > > > still undefined whether nans should be sorted before or > > after > > > > all > > > > > > > values > > > > > > > > (or both, depending on sign bit), so any file including > NaNs > > > > could > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > really leverage sort order without being ambiguous. > > > > > > > > - It's less complex in thrift. Having fields that only > apply > > > to > > > > a > > > > > > > > handful of data types is somehow weird. If every type did > > > this, > > > > we > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > have a plethora of non-generic fields in thrift. > > > > > > > > - Treating NaNs so specially is giving them attention they > > > don't > > > > > > > > deserve. Most data sets do not contain NaNs. If a use case > > > > really > > > > > > > > requires > > > > > > > > them and needs filtering to ignore them, they can store > NULL > > > > > > instead, > > > > > > > > or encode them differently. I would prefer the average > case > > > over > > > > > the > > > > > > > > special case here. > > > > > > > > - The majority of the people discussing this so far seem > to > > > > favor > > > > > > > total > > > > > > > > order. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am Sa., 26. Juli 2025 um 17:38 Uhr schrieb Gang Wu < > > > > ust...@gmail.com > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As this discussion has been open for more than two years, > I’d > > > > like > > > > > to > > > > > > > > bump > > > > > > > > > up > > > > > > > > > this thread again to update the progress and collect > > feedback. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Background* > > > > > > > > > • Today Parquet’s min/max stats and page index omit NaNs > > > > entirely. > > > > > > > > > • Engines can’t safely prune floating values because they > > know > > > > > > nothing > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > NaNs. > > > > > > > > > • Column index is disabled if any page contains only NaNs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are two active proposals as below: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Proposal A - IEEE754TotalOrder* (from the PR [1]) > > > > > > > > > • Define a new ColumnOrder to include +0, –0 and all NaN > > > > > > bit‐patterns. > > > > > > > > > • Stats and column index store NaNs if they appear. > > > > > > > > > • Three PoC impls are ready: arrow-rs [2], duckdb [3] and > > > > > > parquet-java > > > > > > > > [4]. > > > > > > > > > • For more context of this approach, please refer to > > discussion > > > > in > > > > > > [5]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Proposal B - add nan_count* (from a comment [6] to [1]) > > > > > > > > > • Add `nan_count` to stats and a `nan_counts` list to > column > > > > index. > > > > > > > > > • For all‐NaNs cases, write NaN to min/max and use > nan_count > > to > > > > > > > > > distinguish. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Both solutions have pros and cons but are way better than > the > > > > > status > > > > > > > quo > > > > > > > > > today. > > > > > > > > > Please share your thoughts on the two proposals above, or > > maybe > > > > > come > > > > > > up > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > better alternatives. We need consensus on one proposal and > > move > > > > > > > forward. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/221 > > > > > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/arrow-rs/pull/7408 > > > > > > > > > [3] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/duckdb/duckdb/compare/main...Mytherin:duckdb:ieeeorder > > > > > > > > > [4] https://github.com/apache/parquet-java/pull/3191 > > > > > > > > > [5] https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/196 > > > > > > > > > [6] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/221#issuecomment-2931376077 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > > Gang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 4:22 PM Jan Finis < > jpfi...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear contributors, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My PR has now gathered comments for a week and the gist > of > > > all > > > > > open > > > > > > > > > issues > > > > > > > > > > is the question of how to encode pages/column chunks that > > > > contain > > > > > > > only > > > > > > > > > > NaNs. There are different suggestions and I don't see one > > > > common > > > > > > > > favorite > > > > > > > > > > yet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have outlined three alternatives of how we can handle > > these > > > > > and I > > > > > > > > want > > > > > > > > > us > > > > > > > > > > to reach a conclusion here, so I can update my PR > > accordingly > > > > and > > > > > > > move > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > with it. As this is my first contribution to parquet, I > > don't > > > > > know > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > decision processes here. Do we vote? Is there a single or > > > group > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > decision > > > > > > > > > > makers? *Please let me know how to come to a conclusion > > here; > > > > > what > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > next steps?* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For reference, here are the three alternatives I pointed > > out. > > > > You > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > find > > > > > > > > > > detailed description of their PROs and CONs in my > comment: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/196#issuecomment-1486416762 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. My initial proposal, i.e., encoding only-NaN pages by > > > > > > min=max=NaN. > > > > > > > > > > 2. Adding `num_values` to the ColumnIndex, to make it > > > symmetric > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > Statistics in pages & `ColumnMetaData` and to enable the > > > > > > computation > > > > > > > > > > `num_values - null_count - nan_count == 0` > > > > > > > > > > 3. Adding a `nan_pages` bool list to the column index, > > which > > > > > > > indicates > > > > > > > > > > whether a page contains only NaNs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > > Jan Finis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
