[
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.
