0/+1
Tested a bunch of R package/install cases.
Unfortunately we are still working on SPARK-18817, which looks to be a change
when going from Spark 1.6 to 2.0. In that case it won't be a blocker.
_
From: vaquar khan
Hi,
As I know, Spark SQL doesn't provide native support for this feature now.
After searching, I found only few database systems support it, e.g.,
PostgreSQL.
Actually based on the Spark SQL's aggregate system, I think it is not very
difficult to add the support for this feature. The problem is
+1 (non-binding)
Regards,
vaquar khan
On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Adam Roberts wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> *Functional*: looks good, tested with OpenJDK 8 (1.8.0_111) and IBM's
> latest SDK for Java (8 SR3 FP21).
>
> Tests run clean on Ubuntu 16 04, 14 04, SUSE 12,
+1 (non-binding)
Functional: looks good, tested with OpenJDK 8 (1.8.0_111) and IBM's latest
SDK for Java (8 SR3 FP21).
Tests run clean on Ubuntu 16 04, 14 04, SUSE 12, CentOS 7.2 on x86 and IBM
specific platforms including big-endian. On slower machines I see these
failing but nothing to be
+1 (non-binding) - checked Python artifacts with virtual env.
On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 11:42 AM Denny Lee wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 11:45 PM Liwei Lin wrote:
>
> +1
>
> Cheers,
> Liwei
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 10:29
+1 (non-binding)
On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 11:45 PM Liwei Lin wrote:
> +1
>
> Cheers,
> Liwei
>
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Yuming Wang wrote:
>
> I hope https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/16252 can be fixed until
> release 2.1.0. It's a fix for
Any comments/suggestions are more than welcome.
Thanks,
Anton
2016-12-18 15:08 GMT+01:00 Anton Okolnychyi :
> Here is the pull request: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/16329
>
>
>
> 2016-12-16 20:54 GMT+01:00 Jim Hughes :
>
>> I'd be happy to
Here is the pull request: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/16329
2016-12-16 20:54 GMT+01:00 Jim Hughes :
> I'd be happy to review a PR. At the minute, I'm still learning Spark SQL,
> so writing documentation might be a bit of a stretch, but reviewing would
> be fine.
>
>