Hi Qi, Thanks for the proposal. I am generally +1 with the idea. Could you clarify which option is preferred in “Q1. What are you trying to do?”? Understanding this will help us align our discussion.
On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 3:05 PM Reynold Xin <[email protected]> wrote: > Pretty much anything (say vs current timestamp operations in Spark). > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 2:51 PM serge rielau.com <[email protected]> wrote: > >> What are you comparing performance against? >> On Mar 17, 2025 at 11:54 AM -0700, Reynold Xin >> <[email protected]>, wrote: >> >> Any thoughts on how to deal with performance here? Initially we didn't do >> nano level precision because of performance (would not be able to fit >> everything into a 64 bit int). >> >> On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 11:34 AM Sakthi <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> +1 (non-binding) >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 11:32 AM Zhou Jiang <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 for the nanosecond support >>>> >>>> >>>> > On Mar 16, 2025, at 16:03, Dongjoon Hyun <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > +1 for supporting NanoSecond Timestamps. >>>> > >>>> > Thank you, Qi. >>>> > >>>> > Dongjoon. >>>> > >>>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> > To unsubscribe e-mail: [email protected] >>>> > >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe e-mail: [email protected] >>>> >>>>
