Yeah. It should be VARIANT(1). We have some places using VARIANT incorrectly - 
we may not catch them when we finalized the spec. 

> On Mar 30, 2026, at 6:17 AM, Andrew Lamb <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> I believe it needs needs to be VARIANT(1) , the (1) being the
> "specification_version" [1]
> 
> We recently fixed an example in LogicalTypes.md[2] to follow the .thrift
> 
> Fixing the examples in VariantEncoding.md[3] I think would be a good change
> 
> Andrew
> 
> [1]:
> https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/blob/285b6fd1335da2e8bafe8570f0c00b55c2c41748/src/main/thrift/parquet.thrift#L412
> [2]: https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/555
> [3]: https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/blob/master/VariantEncoding.md
> 
>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2026 at 9:10 AM Steve Loughran <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> The normative specification of variants, parquet-format/VariantEncoding.md,
>> uses examples
>> 
>> optional group shredded_variant_name (VARIANT) {
>>  required binary metadata;
>>  optional binary value;
>>  optional int64 typed_value;
>> }
>> 
>> But copy that and you get an error
>> 
>> java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Expecting only spec version for variant
>> annotation args: []
>> at org.apache.parquet.Preconditions.checkArgument(Preconditions.java:70)
>> at
>> 
>> org.apache.parquet.schema.LogicalTypeAnnotation$LogicalTypeToken$3.fromString(LogicalTypeAnnotation.java:64)
>> at
>> 
>> org.apache.parquet.schema.MessageTypeParser.addGroupType(MessageTypeParser.java:139)
>> at
>> 
>> org.apache.parquet.schema.MessageTypeParser.addType(MessageTypeParser.java:109)
>> at
>> 
>> org.apache.parquet.schema.MessageTypeParser.addGroupTypeFields(MessageTypeParser.java:99)
>> at
>> 
>> org.apache.parquet.schema.MessageTypeParser.parse(MessageTypeParser.java:92)
>> at
>> 
>> org.apache.parquet.schema.MessageTypeParser.parseMessageType(MessageTypeParser.java:82)
>> 
>> It has to be (VARIANT(1)), as is done in the limited number of places a
>> variant is declared in the code.
>> 
>> Is this an omission in the specification?
>> 
>> If it is, I'll file an issue/pr to fix.
>> 

Reply via email to