Hi Amit,
I think the type of the data contained in your RDD needs to be a known case
class and not abstract for createSchemaRDD. This makes sense when you
think it needs to know about the fields in the object to create the schema.
I had the same issue when I used an abstract base class for a
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Patrick McGloin mcgloin.patr...@gmail.com
wrote:
I think the type of the data contained in your RDD needs to be a known
case class and not abstract for createSchemaRDD. This makes sense when
you think it needs to know about the fields in the object to
That might not be enough. Reflection is used to determine what the
fields are, thus your class might actually need to have members
corresponding to the fields in the table.
I heard that a more generic method of inputting stuff is coming.
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Tobias Pfeiffer
Hi Evan, Patrick and Tobias,
So, It worked for what I needed it to do. I followed Yana's suggestion of
using parameterized type of [T : Product:ClassTag:TypeTag]
more concretely, I was trying to make the query process a bit more fluent
-some pseudocode but with correct types
val
Hi All,
I am having some trouble trying to write generic code that uses sqlContext
and RDDs. Can you suggest what might be wrong?
class SparkTable[T : ClassTag](val sqlContext:SQLContext, val extractor:
(String) = (T) ) {
private[this] var location:Option[String] =None
private[this] var
