[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-680?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14319175#comment-14319175
]
Sachin Goyal commented on AVRO-680:
-----------------------------------
{quote}Otherwise, we could restrict it to just primitive types.{quote}
Yes, my 2 cents would be restricting it to primitive types.
I will make this change in the new patch.
\\
\\
{code}
Map<Integer, String> m = new HashMap<Integer, String>();
m.put(34, "s");
ReflectData.get().getSchema(m);
{code}
It is not possible to have this patch work when the top-level field is a map
because type-information is not present for top-level maps.
The type information for generics is available only when the map is a field.
Please share some code with me if you think its possible.
\\
\\
{quote}
It would also make sense to have the accessor fall back to Map.Entry#getKey()
if the underlying field isn't available.
{quote}
This should work for most of the common map-type fields.
For others, where this could fail, can we please cross the bridge when it
comes? :)
[~cutting], thoughts?
> Allow for non-string keys
> -------------------------
>
> Key: AVRO-680
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-680
> Project: Avro
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Affects Versions: 1.7.6, 1.7.7
> Reporter: Jeremy Hanna
> Attachments: AVRO-680.patch, AVRO-680.patch, PERF_8000_cycles.zip,
> isMap_Call_Hierarchy.png, non_string_map_keys.zip, non_string_map_keys2.zip,
> non_string_map_keys3.zip, non_string_map_keys4.patch,
> non_string_map_keys5.patch, non_string_map_keys6.patch,
> non_string_map_keys7.patch, non_string_map_perf.txt,
> non_string_map_perf2.txt, original_perf.txt
>
>
> Based on an email thread back in April, Doug Cutting proposed a possible
> solution for having non-string keys:
> Stu Hood wrote:
> > I can understand the reasoning behind AVRO-9, but now I need to look for an
> > alternative to a 'map' that will allow me to store an association of bytes
> > keys to values.
> A map of Foo has the same binary format as an array of records, each
> with a string field and a Foo field. So an application can use an array
> schema similar to this to represent map-like structures with, e.g.,
> non-string keys.
> Perhaps we could establish standard properties that indicate that a
> given array of records should be represented in a map-like way if
> possible? E.g.,:
> {"type": "array", "isMap": true, "items": {"type":"record", ...}}
> Doug
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
