Its an implementation artifact of the old parser JavaCC in release prior to and including 0.8. The new parser, as Alan points out, should not require this.
Santhosh -----Original Message----- From: Alan Gates [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 9:00 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Does the name of the tuple that a bag has to have matter? The name doesn't matter. We mostly left it there for backward compatibility, for both specifying schemas and for UDFs. I do think we should make sure we ignore it everywhere (including equality for schemas). Alan. On Nov 16, 2011, at 7:17 PM, Jonathan Coveney wrote: > This is related to an issue I'll probably be emailing about once I > isolate it, but I was curious what the philosophy is around the name > of the tuple that is in a bag. > > example: > Schema s1 = > Utils.getSchemaFromString("b:bag{t:tuple(name:chararray,age:int)}"); > > In pig8, you had the whole two level access nonsense, so let's ignore that. > In pig9, the tuple name seemed to be preserved, and would print with > toString. > In trunk, the schema object throws away that name, and it doesn't print. > > I'm curious if there is any reason to keep it around, esp. given you > can just do Schema.equals(s1,s2,false,true) for equality without field > names, not to mention the fact that the name never really is going to > matter since a bag only has one element and it is a tuple. > > Thanks! > Jon
