I'll go ahead then, noone seems to have an issue with this :-)
2014-07-08 18:29 GMT+02:00 Ankit Kumar <[email protected]>: > +1 > > Ankit > > > On 08 Jul 2014, at 15:09, Kasper Sørensen < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > Well almost. It would be a Map<String,Object>, since the value-type is > > unknown. For instance, if the document had nested objects or arrays, or > > even a number-value, it would not always be a string value. The metadata > > would say that the column type is ColumnType.MAP > > > > > > 2014-07-08 12:56 GMT+02:00 Ankit Kumar <[email protected]>: > > > >> Hi Kasper, > >> > >> Quick question - Will the map based interpretation of the JSON be a > >> Map<String,String> type and would we get this automatically in that type > >> when reading the column from the row. > >> > >> If that's the idea then I would vote for it [+1] as we can already > benefit > >> from this. > >> > >> If I interpret it incorrect then do please enlighten me. > >> > >> Regards > >> Ankit > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Kasper Sørensen < > >> [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi guys, > >>> > >>> Maybe you saw that I posted a review request [1] yesterday for > >> METAMODEL-38 > >>> (a JSON based module for MetaModel). > >>> > >>> I was building this JSON module and trying to do it in a way where the > >> user > >>> could configure how the logical schema would look like. In some cases > you > >>> would want MetaModel to infer the schema based on a sample of documents > >> in > >>> the source, and in other cases you might want MetaModel to just treat > the > >>> source as a 1-column table with a MAP data type. There's probably also > >>> other strategies. > >>> > >>> That part I felt was also very relevant for many other "schemaless" > >>> datastores, such as MongoDB, CouchDB, HBase etc. So I put there > >> interfaces > >>> and a few standard implementations of it into the core module, and > >> applied > >>> it to the JSON module. If this idea is accepted, I would like to also > add > >>> it to MongoDB and CouchDB modules (those are a natural fit) and maybe > >> also > >>> HBase (slight more advanced because of the column-family concept). > >>> > >>> I think it makes sense to open a DISCUSS thread about this approach, > >> since > >>> Schema Inference is in itself a very nice distinguishing feature I > think. > >>> I'd like to invite anyone to share their ideas here, so that this is > >> maybe > >>> a place where we can make MetaModel shine. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> Kasper > >>> > >>> [1] https://reviews.apache.org/r/23228/ > >> >
