Conversation
|
I tested union encoding myself, and the behaviour that I observed differed from the original proposal in #8828. I based my examples on the actual behaviour to the best of my knowledge. Please let me know if something is wrong. |
|
@friendlymatthew -- can you help review this? |
alamb
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks -- I went over this carefully and I think it looks correct and really nicely explained. Thank you @EduardAkhmetshin
cc @Jefffrey
| /// ## Union Ordering | ||
| /// | ||
| /// Values of the same type are ordered according to the ordering of that type. | ||
| /// Values of different types are ordered by their type id. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would be good to mention reversing via negating the type_id here:
Lines 1742 to 1747 in 2507946
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since I am trying to prepare the 57.2.0 I took the liberty of making this change directly to this PR in 08efd42. If I got it wrong or you would like other changes, I will be happy to make a follow on PR
|
Thanks again @EduardAkhmetshin @Jefffrey and @friendlymatthew |
Which issue does this PR close?
What changes are included in this PR?
Documentation on union types encoding in https://arrow.apache.org/rust/arrow_row/struct.RowConverter.html.
Are these changes tested?
Yes.
Are there any user-facing changes?
Yes. https://arrow.apache.org/rust/arrow_row/struct.RowConverter.html will get updated.