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

Forward incompatible types introduced when writing Iceberg data #887

Closed
sungwy opened this issue Jul 2, 2024 · 2 comments
Closed

Forward incompatible types introduced when writing Iceberg data #887

sungwy opened this issue Jul 2, 2024 · 2 comments

Comments

@sungwy
Copy link
Collaborator

sungwy commented Jul 2, 2024

Apache Iceberg version

None

Please describe the bug 🐞

Through the introduction of #807 we have introduced large_* types in the parquet files, which cannot be read using an earlier version of PyIceberg:
TypeError: Unsupported type: large_string

Although the parquet types are the same, there must be an encoding detail that instructs pyarrow to read these as large_* types on read.

Therefore, instead of defaulting to large_* types, we should default the types to small types on write.

@sungwy sungwy added this to the PyIceberg 0.7.0 release milestone Jul 2, 2024
@kevinjqliu
Copy link
Contributor

So the current version of pyiceberg can write parquet files with the large_string data type. But the older version of pyiceberg cannot read the parquet file with the large_string data type.

I feel like this is a library versioning problem and its ok to not be backwards compatible, esp before the 1.0 version.

My opinion is that we should be able to support both string and large_string data types. And if supporting large_string type means the library won't be backwards compatible, that is ok.

@sungwy sungwy changed the title Backward incompatible types introduced when writing Iceberg data Forward incompatible types introduced when writing Iceberg data Jul 2, 2024
@Fokko
Copy link
Contributor

Fokko commented Jul 12, 2024

Closing this one since #902 has been merged. Thanks @syun64 for reporting this 🙌

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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants