-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 835
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
RecordBatch
normalization (flattening)
#6758
Open
ngli-me
wants to merge
16
commits into
apache:main
Choose a base branch
from
ngli-me:feature/record-batch-flatten
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
16 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
bbd7c8b
Added set up for the example of flattening from pyarrow.
8abcd25
Logic for recursive normalizer with a base normalize function, based …
6bba7d3
Added recursive normalize function for `Schema`, and started building…
55eb953
Built out a bit more of the iterative normalize.
30d6294
Fixed normalize function for `RecordBatch`. Adjusted test case to mat…
0ed979d
Added tests for `Schema` normalization. Partial tests for `RecordBatch`.
d9d08cd
Removed stray comments.
d1b3260
Commenting out exclamation field.
a12082c
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/main' into feature/record-batc…
7adda58
Fixed test for `RecordBatch`.
9c9c699
Formatting.
4422add
Additional documentation for `normalize` functions. Switched `Schema`…
d0dc5a7
Forgot to push to the columns in the else case.
1e40c98
Adjusted the documentation to include the parameters.
3c424d1
Formatting.
6d6b026
Edited examples to not be ran as tests.
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Added tests for
Schema
normalization. Partial tests for RecordBatch
.
- Loading branch information
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not sure if there's a better way to structure it, but is there a way to keep the field name parts in a
Vec
and create the flattened fields at the end? That allows you to avoid the repeatedformat!
in a deeply nested schema.Might not be worth the trouble though.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think this is a good point, this is definitely not my favorite way to do this. I'll have to do some testing and think about it some more, but it may be better to construct the queue with the components of the
Field
, then go through and construct all of theField
s at the very end.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Added a (hopefully) better approach for this that concats the
Vec<&str>
when the field is done being processed.