Hi,
I am interfacing arrow to a Clickhouse database using their c++ client. Both
arrow and CH have generic array-like classes with the element data type
internalized. Ideally, I would like to be able to write something like:
arrow::Array a = SomeConversionInvocation(clickhouse::Column c);
Where the array and column have the same element type (int, double, string,
...) but the code is generic to the specific type.
I can do this by explicitly handling specific types through template
specialization but I thought that since arrow already has pretty generic type
handling through its templates, and clickhouse also has similar capability
there ought to be a more seamless way to do the conversion. Zero copy would
probably be a lot to ask, but something short of template specializations for
every type is what I am aiming for.
I currently do explicit type specialization. For example I have functions like:
inline std::shared_ptr<arrow::Array> makeArray(const std::vector<double> &v)
{
arrow::DoubleBuilder builder;
builder.AppendValues(v);
std::shared_ptr<arrow::Array> array;
builder.Finish(&array);
return array;
}
inline std::shared_ptr<arrow::Array> makeArray(const std::vector<int> &v)
{
arrow::Int32Builder builder;
builder.AppendValues(v);
std::shared_ptr<arrow::Array> array;
builder.Finish(&array);
return array;
}
Which I suspect is unnecessarily explicit. Is there a more generic way of
handling the variety of underlying array element data types when constructing
arrow::Array objects? And can someone point me to examples that interface arrow
to another similarly generically typed library (doesn't have to be clickhouse).
Thanks for any guidance.
Matt
The information contained in this e-mail may be confidential and is intended
solely for the use of the named addressee.
Access, copying or re-use of the e-mail or any information contained therein by
any other person is not authorized.
If you are not the intended recipient please notify us immediately by returning
the e-mail to the originator.
Disclaimer Version MB.US.1
