Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
[Fix](parquet-reader) Fix INT96 timestamp min-max statistics is incorrect when was written by some old parquet writers by disable it. - #35041
Conversation
…rect when was written by some old parquet writers by disable it.
doris-robot
commented
May 20, 2024
Thank you for your contribution to Apache Doris. Since 2024-03-18, the Document has been moved to doris-website. |
PR approved by at least one committer and no changes requested. |
PR approved by anyone and no changes requested. |
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
kaka11chen
commented
May 20, 2024
run buildall |
1 similar comment
kaka11chen
commented
May 20, 2024
run buildall |
doris-robot
commented
May 20, 2024
TeamCity be ut coverage result: |
…rect when was written by some old parquet writers by disable it. (#35041) Parquet INT96 timestamp values were compared incorrectly for the purposes of producing statistics by older parquet writers, so PARQUET-1065 deprecated them. The result is that any writer that produced stats was producing unusable incorrect values, except the special case where min == max and an incorrect ordering would not be material to the result. PARQUET-1026 made binary stats available and valid in that special case.
…rect when was written by some old parquet writers by disable it. (apache#35041) Parquet INT96 timestamp values were compared incorrectly for the purposes of producing statistics by older parquet writers, so PARQUET-1065 deprecated them. The result is that any writer that produced stats was producing unusable incorrect values, except the special case where min == max and an incorrect ordering would not be material to the result. PARQUET-1026 made binary stats available and valid in that special case.
…rect when was written by some old parquet writers by disable it. (apache#35041) Parquet INT96 timestamp values were compared incorrectly for the purposes of producing statistics by older parquet writers, so PARQUET-1065 deprecated them. The result is that any writer that produced stats was producing unusable incorrect values, except the special case where min == max and an incorrect ordering would not be material to the result. PARQUET-1026 made binary stats available and valid in that special case.
…rect when was written by some old parquet writers by disable it. (#35041) Parquet INT96 timestamp values were compared incorrectly for the purposes of producing statistics by older parquet writers, so PARQUET-1065 deprecated them. The result is that any writer that produced stats was producing unusable incorrect values, except the special case where min == max and an incorrect ordering would not be material to the result. PARQUET-1026 made binary stats available and valid in that special case.
…rect when was written by some old parquet writers by disable it. (apache#35041) (apache#35160) backport apache#35041
…rect when was written by some old parquet writers by disable it. (apache#35041) Parquet INT96 timestamp values were compared incorrectly for the purposes of producing statistics by older parquet writers, so PARQUET-1065 deprecated them. The result is that any writer that produced stats was producing unusable incorrect values, except the special case where min == max and an incorrect ordering would not be material to the result. PARQUET-1026 made binary stats available and valid in that special case.
Proposed changes
[Fix] (parquet-reader) Fix INT96 timestamp min-max statistics is incorrect when was written by some old parquet writers by disabling it.
Parquet INT96 timestamp values were compared incorrectly for the purposes of producing statistics by older parquet writers, so PARQUET-1065 deprecated them. The result is that any writer that produced stats was producing unusable incorrect values, except the special case where min == max and an incorrect ordering would not be material to the result. PARQUET-1026 made binary stats available and valid in that special case.
Further comments
If this is a relatively large or complex change, kick off the discussion at dev@doris.apache.org by explaining why you chose the solution you did and what alternatives you considered, etc...