fix(parquet/pqarrow): Fix propagation of field-ids for Lists #397
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
zeroshade
commented
Jun 5, 2025
Member
Author
zeroshade
left a comment
zeroshade
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
CC @shubham-tomar this fixes the issue you brought up to me on the iceberg-go slack. After this is merged, I'll update the dependency in iceberg-go.
lidavidm
approved these changes
Jun 6, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Rationale for this change
An issue was found in apache/iceberg-go when attempting to retrieve data from a table containing a List Column that had a struct as the element. It was failing to propagate the element-id for the fields when fetching. I tracked it down to the schema handling here.
What changes are included in this PR?
Changes the
getNestedFactorymethod in pqarrow/schema.go to useListOfFieldinstead ofListOfso that it preserves the metadata, i.e. the field id.Are these changes tested?
Yes, a test has been added to cover this scenario.
Are there any user-facing changes?
Previously this situation would result in a field-id of -1, now users will see the field-id get propagated correctly.