Then I'll have to find a work around for the Dot framework to allow entering "no alias" case by not touching the parser
On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 3:03 AM, Santhosh Srinivasan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bags have schemas. The schema of the bag is the schema of the tuple > inside the bag. Pi is correct when he says "...doesn't output Bag fields > with tuples wrapped inside but Bag with schema instead" > > Santhosh > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alan Gates [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 9:21 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Question on the LogicalPlanTester > > Comments inlined. > > pi song wrote: > > I came across a couple more issues:- > > > > 1) Currently we don't allow specifying only data type but no alias in > > schema declaration. I work around by using "null" keyword > > > > null:int, null:long null means no alias specified > > > > This is obviously not the right solution. We again need a discussion > > on schema declaration for different cases:- > > - Specify both type and alias (Currently supported) > > - Specify only alias, no type (Currently supported) > > - Specify only type, no alias (Currently not supported) > As specified, there isn't support for giving a field's type without > giving it an alias. I don't know that we need to allow this. > > > > 2) Current cogroup implementation doesn't output Bag fields with > > tuples wrapped inside but Bag with schema instead. This is apparently > > inconsistent with schema definition. I don't know which one is right. > > We've discussed about this before but didn't come up with a consensus. > > > BTW, a quick way to work around this would be altering(hacking) schema > > > loading in LogicalPlanLoader.createLOCogroup() > Santhosh, can you comment on this? My understanding was that bags could > > have schemas too, as that implied that they contained tuples with that > schema. > > > > <snip> > Alan. >
