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
Is your feature request related to a problem or challenge? Please describe what you are trying to do.
When the nanoseconds part of IntervalMonthDayNano value does not exceed i32::MAX, then it is safe to write it to parquet after truncating it to 4 bytes. But currently I always get an unimplemented error when I try to write the array to parquet.
Describe the solution you'd like
When the nanoseconds part does not exceed i32::MAX, then it is safe to write it to parquet after truncating it to 4 bytes. If it exceeds i32::MAX, then we can throw error.
This unblocks the ones who needs to write arrow IntervalMonthDayNano with milliseconds precision to parquet. It currently always throws error even if it is safe to write the value to parquet.
Describe alternatives you've considered
There seems to be not many alternatives, other than adding new interval types to the spec. But this seems a huge change.
Is your feature request related to a problem or challenge? Please describe what you are trying to do.
When the
nanoseconds
part ofIntervalMonthDayNano
value does not exceedi32::MAX
, then it is safe to write it to parquet after truncating it to 4 bytes. But currently I always get an unimplemented error when I try to write the array to parquet.Describe the solution you'd like
When the
nanoseconds
part does not exceedi32::MAX
, then it is safe to write it to parquet after truncating it to 4 bytes. If it exceedsi32::MAX
, then we can throw error.This unblocks the ones who needs to write arrow
IntervalMonthDayNano
with milliseconds precision to parquet. It currently always throws error even if it is safe to write the value to parquet.Describe alternatives you've considered
There seems to be not many alternatives, other than adding new interval types to the spec. But this seems a huge change.
Additional context
related discussion #5849
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: