+1 (non-binding) Thank you! Looking forward to this

On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 7:52 PM Tathagata Das <[email protected]>
wrote:

> +1 binding. very excited.
>
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 10:47 PM John Zhuge <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> +1 (non-binding) Appreciate it!
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 4:13 PM karuppayya <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 (non-binding)
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 3:48 PM Qiegang Long <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 non-binding
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 6:42 PM L. C. Hsieh <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 2:45 PM Gengliang Wang <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Spark devs,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd like to call a vote on the SPIP*: DSV2 Enhanced Partition Stats
>>>>>> Filtering.*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Summary:*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The DataSource V2 (DSV2) framework does not currently provide full
>>>>>> data-skipping capabilities comparable to Spark-native sources, primarily
>>>>>> due to limitations in Catalyst expression evaluation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This SPIP bridges that gap to achieve partition-skipping parity. To
>>>>>> support this, Spark will push new *PartitionPredicate* objects that
>>>>>> encapsulate Catalyst partition filter expressions and the evaluation 
>>>>>> logic,
>>>>>> allowing data sources to skip irrelevant partitions effectively.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Relevant Links:*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    -
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    - *SPIP Doc:*
>>>>>>    
>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/17vcw411PxSRLWoK-BiLI56UiNdokLWtovF8JZUlDTOo/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>    -
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    *Discuss Thread:*
>>>>>>    https://lists.apache.org/thread/p2cwngj9bmtcbmyplds833s9lwts8bwc
>>>>>>    -
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    *JIRA:* SPARK-55596
>>>>>>    <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-55596>
>>>>>>    -
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    *POC PR:* PR 54459 <https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/54459>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. *Please vote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ ] +1: Accept the proposal as an official SPIP
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ ] +0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ ] -1: I don't think this is a good idea because ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Gengliang Wang
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
>> --
>> John Zhuge
>>
>

-- 

Liu Cao

Reply via email to