JFinis commented on code in PR #242:
URL: https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/242#discussion_r1624038990


##########
README.md:
##########
@@ -107,12 +113,97 @@ start locations.  More details on what is contained in 
the metadata can be found
 in the Thrift definition.
 
 Metadata is written after the data to allow for single pass writing.
+This is especially useful when writing to backends such as S3.
 
 Readers are expected to first read the file metadata to find all the column
 chunks they are interested in.  The columns chunks should then be read 
sequentially.
 
  ![File 
Layout](https://raw.github.com/apache/parquet-format/master/doc/images/FileLayout.gif)
 
+### Parquet 3
+
+Parquet 3 files have the following overall structure:
+
+```
+4-byte magic number "PAR1"
+4-byte magic number "PAR3"
+
+<Column 1 Chunk 1 + Column Metadata>
+<Column 2 Chunk 1 + Column Metadata>
+...
+<Column N Chunk 1 + Column Metadata>
+<Column 1 Chunk 2 + Column Metadata>
+<Column 2 Chunk 2 + Column Metadata>
+...
+<Column N Chunk 2 + Column Metadata>
+...
+<Column 1 Chunk M + Column Metadata>
+<Column 2 Chunk M + Column Metadata>
+...
+<Column N Chunk M + Column Metadata>
+
+<File-level Column 1 Metadata v3>
+...
+<File-level Column N Metadata v3>
+
+File Metadata v3
+4-byte length in bytes of File Metadata v3 (little endian)
+4-byte magic number "PAR3"
+
+File Metadata
+4-byte length in bytes of File Metadata (little endian)
+4-byte magic number "PAR1"
+```
+
+Unlike the legacy File Metadata, the File Metadata v3 is designed to be 
light-weight
+to decode, regardless of the number of columns in the file. Individual column
+metadata can be opportunistically decoded depending on actual needs.
+
+This file structure is backwards-compatible. Parquet 1 readers will read and
+decode the legacy File Metadata in the file footer, while Parquet 3 readers
+will notice the "PAR3" magic number just before the File Metadata and will
+instead read and decode the File Metadata v3.

Review Comment:
   I'm late to this thread and haven't fully read it. I just want to give my +1 
that the current proposal would require too many I/O requests and thus make 
this basically a deal breaker for high latency storage like S3. We would not 
use this due to this.
   
   Any change that increases the number of data-dependent requests necessary to 
decode it basically a deal breaker for us and I guess is so for a lot of other 
data lake companies.



-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to