[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-25699?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17481866#comment-17481866
]
Sergey Nuyanzin commented on FLINK-25699:
-----------------------------------------
Hi [~twalthr]
there is a a question, may be you can help here. Do we need to respect order of
elements here?
I'm asking because I faced a test [1], which assumes that order of pairs is
always the same...
In theory both could be valid {{\{1=2,3=4\}}} and {{\{3=4,1=2\}}}
{code:scala}
testAllApis(
map(1, 2L , 3, 4L),
"map(1, 2L, 3, 4L)",
"MAP[1, CAST(2 AS BIGINT), 3, CAST(4 AS BIGINT)]",
"{1=2, 3=4}")
{code}
[1]
https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/f14ff3d5da471bf263ed7165c09bc8c57cdc4eaf/flink-table/flink-table-planner/src/test/scala/org/apache/flink/table/planner/expressions/MapTypeTest.scala#L84
> Use HashMap for MAP value constructors
> --------------------------------------
>
> Key: FLINK-25699
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-25699
> Project: Flink
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: Table SQL / Runtime
> Reporter: Timo Walther
> Assignee: Sergey Nuyanzin
> Priority: Major
>
> Currently, the usage of maps is inconsistent. It is not ensured that
> duplicate keys get eliminated. For CAST and output conversion this is solved.
> However, we should have a similar implementation in MAP value constructor
> like in CAST.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.1#820001)
