[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIG-767?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12699832#action_12699832 ]
George Mavromatis commented on PIG-767: --------------------------------------- Santosh: You are saying the exact same thing I said, i.e. that inner bags contain tuples and that describe does not report the tuples in the schema it prints. That's precisely the bug. Our examples are in fact similar too! I hope that my description shows that I understand that inner bags contain tuples ("As expected, actual data observed from DUMP... contain the tuple inside the inner bags"). > Schema reported from DESCRIBE and actual schema of inner bags are different. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: PIG-767 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIG-767 > Project: Pig > Issue Type: Bug > Reporter: George Mavromatis > Fix For: 0.2.0 > > > The following script: > urlContents = LOAD 'inputdir' USING BinStorage() AS (url:bytearray, > pg:bytearray); > -- describe and dump are in-sync > DESCRIBE urlContents; > DUMP urlContents; > urlContentsG = GROUP urlContents BY url; > DESCRIBE urlContentsG; > urlContentsF = FOREACH urlContentsG GENERATE group,urlContents.pg; > DESCRIBE urlContentsF; > DUMP urlContentsF; > Prints for the DESCRIBE commands: > urlContents: {url: chararray,pg: chararray} > urlContentsG: {group: chararray,urlContents: {url: chararray,pg: chararray}} > urlContentsF: {group: chararray,pg: {pg: chararray}} > The reported schemas for urlContentsG and urlContentsF are wrong. They are > also against the section "Schemas for Complex Data Types" in > http://wiki.apache.org/pig-data/attachments/FrontPage/attachments/plrm.htm#_Schemas. > As expected, actual data observed from DUMP urlContentsG and DUMP > urlContentsF do contain the tuple inside the inner bags. > The correct schema for urlContentsG is: {group: chararray,urlContents: > {t1:(url: chararray,pg: chararray)}} > This may sound like a technicality, but it isn't. For instance, a UDF that > assumes an inner bag of {chararray} will not work with {(chararray)}. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.