Ah ok for some reason when I did the pull request sys.maxsize was much
larger than 2^63. Do you want to submit a patch to fix this?
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Maciej Szymkiewicz <mszymkiew...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> The problem is that -(1 << 63) is -(sys.maxsize + 1) so the code which
> used to work before is off by one.
> On 11/30/2016 06:43 PM, Reynold Xin wrote:
>
> Can you give a repro? Anything less than -(1 << 63) is considered negative
> infinity (i.e. unbounded preceding).
>
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 8:27 AM, Maciej Szymkiewicz <
> mszymkiew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've been looking at the SPARK-17845 and I am curious if there is any
>> reason to make it a breaking change. In Spark 2.0 and below we could use:
>>
>> Window().partitionBy("foo").orderBy("bar").rowsBetween(-sys.maxsize,
>> sys.maxsize))
>>
>> In 2.1.0 this code will silently produce incorrect results (ROWS BETWEEN
>> -1 PRECEDING AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING) Couldn't we use
>> Window.unboundedPreceding equal -sys.maxsize to ensure backward
>> compatibility?
>>
>> --
>>
>> Maciej Szymkiewicz
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> --
> Maciej Szymkiewicz
>
>
