liurenjie1024 closed issue #123: Tracking: Reading iceberg tables.
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg-rust/issues/123
--
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 uns
Fokko commented on issue #123:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg-rust/issues/123#issuecomment-2503881146
I would be in favor of closing this one, and just keep #128 :)
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and u
liurenjie1024 commented on issue #123:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg-rust/issues/123#issuecomment-2211701608
> Is this tracking issue still relevant? Should we start a new one to better
reflect the current status?
Most of them are closed, but size based planning still not fin
Xuanwo commented on issue #123:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg-rust/issues/123#issuecomment-2211093154
Is this tracking issue still relevant? Should we start a new one to better
reflect the current status?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to
liurenjie1024 commented on issue #123:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg-rust/issues/123#issuecomment-1952067074
Hi, @sdd
> If you are aiming just to have table reads _working_ first, and optimizing
them afterwards, then #124 is not completely necessary to do at this stage?
sdd commented on issue #123:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg-rust/issues/123#issuecomment-1951870583
If you are aiming just to have table reads _working_ first, and optimizing
them afterwards, then #124 is not completely necessary to do at this stage?
--
This is an automated messag
