[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-15809?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15839348#comment-15839348
]
Hyukjin Kwon commented on SPARK-15809:
--------------------------------------
I don't think it is worth to do this with breaking the API (getting rid of it
breaks existing codes for {{(2)}}).
I think in a way it is also reasonable to provide the default type as
{{StringType}} for newbies easily to try the udf only with passing the function.
> PySpark SQL UDF default returnType
> ----------------------------------
>
> Key: SPARK-15809
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-15809
> Project: Spark
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: PySpark
> Reporter: Vladimir Feinberg
> Priority: Minor
>
> The current signature for the pyspark UDF creation function is:
> {code:python}
> pyspark.sql.functions.udf(f, returnType=StringType)
> {code}
> Is there a reason that there's a default parameter for {{returnType}}?
> Returning a string by default doesn't strike me as so much more a frequent
> use case than, say, returning an integer to merit the default.
> In fact, it seems the only reason that the default was chosen is that if we
> *had to choose* a default type, it would be a {{StringType}} because that's
> what we can implicitly convert everything to.
> But this only seems to do two things to me: (1) cause unintentional, annoying
> conversions to strings for new users and (2) make call sites less consistent
> (if people drop the type specification to actually use the default).
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@spark.apache.org
