You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
[FeatureRequest] Statistics: Average column width for dynamically-sized types #8274
we are currently looking into improving query plans based on available column statistics. Iceberg already supports a number of statistics like null_value or lower_bounds/upper_bounds in data_file struct 1. However, Iceberg spec currently does not support statistics for the average column width (for dynamically sized types like string or binary) in-memory.
We are aware that column_sizes exists but the corresponding map lists the size of columns occupying on disk only. Unfortunately, it is not possible to infer the logical size / in-memory size reliably given the storage size because data files (e.g. Apache Parquet) apply compressing encodings like run-length or dictionary as well as data file compression (e.g. snappy). Hence, we advocate for a new statistics to cover logical / in-memory average width of columns.
Preferably, the addition to the existing Iceberg spec happens as a optional parameter (first) to move quickly and let writer implement the change subsequently. An open PR on Apache Parquet 2 already accommodates this feature request perfectly by adding SizeEstimationStatistics to Parquet's statistics.
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has been open for 180 days with no activity. It will be closed in next 14 days if no further activity occurs. To permanently prevent this issue from being considered stale, add the label 'not-stale', but commenting on the issue is preferred when possible.
Activity
singhpk234 commentedon Aug 9, 2023
cc @rdblue @jackye1995
Samrose-Ahmed commentedon Nov 20, 2023
We would also be interested in this. For reference, The corresponding Parquet PR (apache/parquet-format#197) has now been merged.
github-actions commentedon Sep 13, 2024
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has been open for 180 days with no activity. It will be closed in next 14 days if no further activity occurs. To permanently prevent this issue from being considered stale, add the label 'not-stale', but commenting on the issue is preferred when possible.
github-actions commentedon Oct 4, 2024
This issue has been closed because it has not received any activity in the last 14 days since being marked as 'stale'