[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-9340?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14679792#comment-14679792
]
Damian Guy commented on SPARK-9340:
-----------------------------------
Hi, I did try it against the 1.5 and the problem still exists - hence the fix.
You can try it for yourself if you run just the tests I added without making
the other changes.
The part of the parquet spec that matters in this case is here:
https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/blob/master/LogicalTypes.md#nested-types
In particular:
"This does not affect repeated fields that are not annotated: A repeated field
that is neither contained by a LIST- or MAP-annotated group nor annotated by
LIST or MAP should be interpreted as a required list of required elements where
the element type is the type of the field."
parquet-protobuf does a 1 - 1 mapping and does not have annotations. It is
compliant with the spec.
Whilst i feel the spec should be tighter and the schema should be consistent no
matter the original data format, this is not the case.
> ParquetTypeConverter incorrectly handling of repeated types results in schema
> mismatch
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SPARK-9340
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-9340
> Project: Spark
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: SQL
> Affects Versions: 1.2.0, 1.3.0, 1.4.0, 1.5.0
> Reporter: Damian Guy
> Attachments: ParquetTypesConverterTest.scala
>
>
> The way ParquetTypesConverter handles primitive repeated types results in an
> incompatible schema being used for querying data. For example, given a schema
> like so:
> message root {
> repeated int32 repeated_field;
> }
> Spark produces a read schema like:
> message root {
> optional int32 repeated_field;
> }
> These are incompatible and all attempts to read fail.
> In ParquetTypesConverter.toDataType:
> if (parquetType.isPrimitive) {
> toPrimitiveDataType(parquetType.asPrimitiveType, isBinaryAsString,
> isInt96AsTimestamp)
> } else {...}
> The if condition should also have
> !parquetType.isRepetition(Repetition.REPEATED)
>
> And then this case will need to be handled in the else
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
