[GitHub] spark issue #19686: [MINOR][SQL] Fix a misleading `resultSchema` in ParquetF...
Github user dongjoon-hyun commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/19686 According to our discussion, I close this, @srowen . Thanks! --- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: reviews-h...@spark.apache.org
[GitHub] spark issue #19686: [MINOR][SQL] Fix a misleading `resultSchema` in ParquetF...
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/19686 Merged build finished. Test PASSed. --- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: reviews-h...@spark.apache.org
[GitHub] spark issue #19686: [MINOR][SQL] Fix a misleading `resultSchema` in ParquetF...
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/19686 Test PASSed. Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed): https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins//job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/83565/ Test PASSed. --- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: reviews-h...@spark.apache.org
[GitHub] spark issue #19686: [MINOR][SQL] Fix a misleading `resultSchema` in ParquetF...
Github user SparkQA commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/19686 **[Test build #83565 has finished](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/83565/testReport)** for PR 19686 at commit [`45728c9`](https://github.com/apache/spark/commit/45728c9fcaa1ff185644723bb6ff21e9eb3614e7). * This patch passes all tests. * This patch merges cleanly. * This patch adds no public classes. --- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: reviews-h...@spark.apache.org
[GitHub] spark issue #19686: [MINOR][SQL] Fix a misleading `resultSchema` in ParquetF...
Github user dongjoon-hyun commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/19686 Thank you for review. Yes. Technically, the previous one is not wrong. It means an unordered set of attributes. So it's minor. In both [FileFormat.buildReaderWithPartitionValues](https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/sql/core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/execution/datasources/FileFormat.scala#L119) and [ParquetFileFormat.buildReaderWithPartitionValues](https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/sql/core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/execution/datasources/parquet/ParquetFileFormat.scala#L297), `fullSchema` has the consistent meaning like the following and it should be ordered. `resultSchema` is not a different one from `fullSchema`, but it looks like in an opposite way and makes me confused at a glance. IMO, it would be better to be consistent with `fullSchema` while reading the code. ```scala val fullSchema = requiredSchema.toAttributes ++ partitionSchema.toAttributes ``` --- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: reviews-h...@spark.apache.org
[GitHub] spark issue #19686: [MINOR][SQL] Fix a misleading `resultSchema` in ParquetF...
Github user srowen commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/19686 Why is the order important here? Wasn't obvious to mr --- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: reviews-h...@spark.apache.org
[GitHub] spark issue #19686: [MINOR][SQL] Fix a misleading `resultSchema` in ParquetF...
Github user SparkQA commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/19686 **[Test build #83565 has started](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/83565/testReport)** for PR 19686 at commit [`45728c9`](https://github.com/apache/spark/commit/45728c9fcaa1ff185644723bb6ff21e9eb3614e7). --- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: reviews-h...@spark.apache.org
