Github user jiang-wu commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/drill/pull/1184#discussion_r184424638
--- Diff: exec/vector/src/main/codegen/templates/FixedValueVectors.java ---
@@ -509,15 +509,15 @@ public long getTwoAsLong(int index) {
public ${friendlyType} getObject(int index) {
org.joda.time.DateTime date = new org.joda.time.DateTime(get(index),
org.joda.time.DateTimeZone.UTC);
date =
date.withZoneRetainFields(org.joda.time.DateTimeZone.getDefault());
- return date;
+ return new java.sql.Date(date.getMillis());
--- End diff --
The string representation between LocalDateTime and Timestamp are not
exactly the same, but that is potentially fixable since we can alter the way
the values are displayed via formatters. Though JDBC is not just for getting
string representations. It is on the programmatic use cases where we are
getting the value objects where one would see the disconnect on the data types.
Will try this out with a use case I have with programmatic JDBC access and see
what are the impacts on different types for the same expected value.
---
