Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apex.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@apex.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAC+nA49EH1800wMSV4k5i=1jfy8wzqz0N3iWBzfTT2dtoqFuYg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+LJDcWSoihdmP=pz8Q1gOkPjyGiCwBN43rJBo1=ZjUW59u2pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAC+nA49EH1800wMSV4k5i=1jfy8wzqz0N3iWBzfTT2dtoqFuYg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Chinmay Kolhatkar <chinmay@datatorrent.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:08:34 +0530
Message-ID: <CABAipVZKE4fSZ=0yb_HJADRe1eQVcdnkcebDMZRAfCAY62tpTg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: APEXMALHAR-2400 In PojoInnerJoin accumulation same field names
 are emitted as single field
To: dev@apex.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114a81c27e623c0548a0e267
archived-at: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 07:38:48 -0000

--001a114a81c27e623c0548a0e267
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I agree with the requirement. But I think the requirement here is superceed
by requirement at
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d1e282047399558a4f04aab186c0d986114d353dcaf6d6c76a2a3a35@%3Cdev.apex.apache.org%3E

Having PojoInnerJoin to emit a POJO instead of map overrides this.

I suggest to do that first and if still there is a scope we look into this.

-Chinmay.


On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 12:27 AM, Shunxin Lu <lushunxin@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Hitesh,
> You are absolutely right. The PojoInnerJoin accumulation we have now is
> only
> to test the implementation of WindowedMergeOperator. I did not considered
> the case you mentioned when developing, so please make changes to fix this.
> Thanks,
> Shunxin
>
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 4:25 AM, Hitesh Kapoor <hitesh@datatorrent.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > In PojoInnerJoin accumulation same field names are emitted as single
> field
> > even if we don't take a join on them. For example consider the following
> 2
> > POJO's on 2 streams
> >
> > POJO1
> > {
> >    id: Int
> >    age : String
> > }
> >
> > POJO2
> > {
> >  id: Int
> >  age : String
> >  name : String
> > }
> >
> > If we wish to take a join only on field id then the resulting stream
> > contains the common named field(age) only from POJO2.
> > So I am confused whether the resulting stream should contain the field
> > 'age' from only POJO1 (or only POJO2) or it should contain the field
> 'age'
> > from both the POJOs.
> >
> > I think it is a bug which should be fixed and the resulting stream should
> > contain common named field from both the POJOs (and maybe rename it in
> the
> > final output). Let me know your thoughts on it.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Hitesh
> >
>

--001a114a81c27e623c0548a0e267--