github-actions[bot] closed issue #10930: Specify in lower/upper bounds in
data_file struct are exact
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/10930
--
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
github-actions[bot] commented on issue #10930:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/10930#issuecomment-2692483070
This issue has been closed because it has not received any activity in the
last 14 days since being marked as 'stale'
--
This is an automated message from the Apache
github-actions[bot] commented on issue #10930:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/10930#issuecomment-2661159019
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 occur
findepi commented on issue #10930:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/10930#issuecomment-2295721068
i do you mean min/max and count from the Iceberg metadata are already used
for query planning? though none of them used for the agg pushdown?
@osscm Correct.
Basic idea
osscm commented on issue #10930:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/10930#issuecomment-2295688832
> Before committing to such spec change, it would be great to have good
understanding on how much real-world improvement it would bring,
Based on my observations, in addition
singhpk234 commented on issue #10930:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/10930#issuecomment-2295114217
> which would specify if bounds are exact for a particular data file. This
would allow to reliably perform aggregation pushdown to Iceberg by engines. By
default lower_bounds an
findepi commented on issue #10930:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/10930#issuecomment-2291761633
I like the idea. It would help process aggregation queries eg in Trino (but
only when there are no deletions).
Before committing to such spec change, it would be great to hav
