+1 (binding)
In
"[VOTE] Removing validity bitmap from Arrow union types" on Mon, 29 Jun 2020
16:23:23 -0500,
Wes McKinney wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As discussed on the mailing list [1], it has been proposed to remove
> the validity bitmap buffer from Union types in the columnar format
>
FYI: I just submitted a PR implementing this in C++ and in the
integration tests. It was not too awful
https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/7598
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 4:52 AM Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> +0
>
>
> Le 29/06/2020 à 23:23, Wes McKinney a écrit :
> > Hi,
> >
> > As discussed on the
+0
Le 29/06/2020 à 23:23, Wes McKinney a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> As discussed on the mailing list [1], it has been proposed to remove
> the validity bitmap buffer from Union types in the columnar format
> specification and instead let value validity be determined exclusively
> by constituent arrays
+1 (non binding)
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 5:29 AM Ben Kietzman
wrote:
> +1 (non binding)
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 00:24 Wes McKinney wrote:
>
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 11:09 PM Micah Kornfield
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > +1 (binding) (I had a couple of nits on language,
+1 (non binding)
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 00:24 Wes McKinney wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 11:09 PM Micah Kornfield
> wrote:
> >
> > +1 (binding) (I had a couple of nits on language, that I put in the PR
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 2:24 PM Wes McKinney
> wrote:
> >
> > >
+1 (binding)
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 11:09 PM Micah Kornfield wrote:
>
> +1 (binding) (I had a couple of nits on language, that I put in the PR
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 2:24 PM Wes McKinney wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > As discussed on the mailing list [1], it has been proposed to remove
> > the
+1 (binding) (I had a couple of nits on language, that I put in the PR
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 2:24 PM Wes McKinney wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As discussed on the mailing list [1], it has been proposed to remove
> the validity bitmap buffer from Union types in the columnar format
> specification and
