ZENOTME commented on PR #704: URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg-rust/pull/704#issuecomment-2505206247
> > > There are two kinds of writers in iceberg: > > > > > > 1. Plain position delete writer: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/blob/da2ad389fd9ba8222f6fb3f57922209c239a7045/core/src/main/java/org/apache/iceberg/deletes/PositionDeleteWriter.java#L49 > > > 2. Sorting position delete writer: > > > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/blob/da2ad389fd9ba8222f6fb3f57922209c239a7045/core/src/main/java/org/apache/iceberg/deletes/PositionDeleteWriter.java#L49 > > > > > > It seems that this pr tries to implement 2, while there are some missing part there. I would suggest to implement 1 first as it's easier, what do you think? > > > > > > Is position delete must be sorted or it just be optional? From the iceberg spec, it looks like it must be sorted. https://iceberg.apache.org/spec/#position-delete-files:~:text=The%20rows%20in%20the%20delete%20file%20must%20be%20sorted%20by%20file_path%20then%20pos%20to%20optimize%20filtering%20rows%20while%20scanning. > > Yes, it's required in spec, but some compute engine could sort this before passing to writer, and writer doesn't need to handle sorting itself. Make sense. Let's implement 1 first -- 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: issues-unsubscr...@iceberg.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@iceberg.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@iceberg.apache.org
