Github user paul-rogers commented on a diff in the pull request:

    https://github.com/apache/drill/pull/914#discussion_r150755238
  
    --- Diff: 
exec/vector/src/main/java/org/apache/drill/exec/record/MaterializedField.java 
---
    @@ -168,6 +174,58 @@ public boolean equals(Object obj) {
                 Objects.equals(this.type, other.type);
       }
     
    +  public boolean isEquivalent(MaterializedField other) {
    +    if (! name.equalsIgnoreCase(other.name)) {
    +      return false;
    +    }
    +
    +    // Requires full type equality, including fields such as precision and 
scale.
    +    // But, unset fields are equivalent to 0. Can't use the 
protobuf-provided
    +    // isEquals(), that treats set and unset fields as different.
    +
    +    if (type.getMinorType() != other.type.getMinorType()) {
    +      return false;
    +    }
    +    if (type.getMode() != other.type.getMode()) {
    +      return false;
    +    }
    +    if (type.getScale() != other.type.getScale()) {
    +      return false;
    +    }
    +    if (type.getPrecision() != other.type.getPrecision()) {
    +      return false;
    +    }
    +
    +    // Compare children -- but only for maps, not the internal children
    +    // for Varchar, repeated or nullable types.
    +
    +    if (type.getMinorType() != MinorType.MAP) {
    +      return true;
    +    }
    +
    +    if (children == null  ||  other.children == null) {
    +      return children == other.children;
    +    }
    +    if (children.size() != other.children.size()) {
    +      return false;
    +    }
    +
    +    // Maps are name-based, not position. But, for our
    +    // purposes, we insist on identical ordering.
    +
    +    Iterator<MaterializedField> thisIter = children.iterator();
    +    Iterator<MaterializedField> otherIter = other.children.iterator();
    +    while (thisIter.hasNext()) {
    --- End diff --
    
    The row set & writer abstractions require identical ordering so that column 
indexes are well-defined. Here we are facing the age-old philosophical question 
of "sameness." Sameness is instrumental: sameness-for-a-purpose. Here, we want 
to know if two schemas are equivalent for the purposes of referencing columns 
by index. We recently did a fix elsewhere we do use the looser definition: that 
A and B contain the same columns, but in possibly different orderings. Added a 
comment to explain this.


---

Reply via email to