Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Sync readers should return a RecordBatchReader #596

Open
Tracked by #594
kylebarron opened this issue Apr 3, 2024 · 2 comments · May be fixed by #967
Open
Tracked by #594

Sync readers should return a RecordBatchReader #596

kylebarron opened this issue Apr 3, 2024 · 2 comments · May be fixed by #967

Comments

@kylebarron
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

@kylebarron kylebarron changed the title P0 Sync readers should return a RecordBatchReader Sync readers should return a RecordBatchReader Apr 3, 2024
@kylebarron
Copy link
Member Author

It's not clear to me how to bridge the gap betwen push based and pull based iterators. Geozero processors create push-based streams, while an iterator is a pull-based interface.

@kylebarron
Copy link
Member Author

With #933, we'll have Parquet, CSV, FlatGeobuf, and IPC files that return a RecordBatchReader, and I think that's maybe enough for this issue to be closed.

It would be nice to expose Shapefile as a record batch reader too, but I'm not sure how much work that would be

kylebarron added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 23, 2024
This PR updates the FlatGeobuf reader (the sync version only for now) to
expose data as an iterator. This means that applications like Python can
access data larger than memory, and process it in batches.

- [x] This was blocked on Flatgeobuf exposing the `Seekable` and
`NotSeekable` marker structs, but that happened in
flatgeobuf/flatgeobuf#402

Closes #932

For #594, for
#596
@kylebarron kylebarron linked a pull request Dec 23, 2024 that will close this issue
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

1 participant