Conversation
| fields.append(self._construct_field(field, array.type)) | ||
| elif field.optional: | ||
| arrow_type = schema_to_pyarrow(field.field_type, include_field_ids=False) | ||
| arrow_type = schema_to_pyarrow(field.field_type, include_field_ids=self._include_field_ids) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ah!! i think this is the right approach
i tried to resolve it by passing the schema's name mapping
https://github.com/apache/iceberg-python/compare/main...kevinjqliu:iceberg-python:kevinjqliu/use-name-mapping?expand=1#diff-8d5e63f2a87ead8cebe2fd8ac5dcf2198d229f01e16bb9e06e21f7277c328abdR1655
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, we missed this in a review 🤦 Field-IDs are superior over name-mapping, for example: dropping a field, and then adding a new field with the same name is not supported by name-mapping because it re-uses the name. In the case of field-IDs, a new ID is assigned and it will look like a new column 👍
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I found 3 other places where include_field_ids=False
- in
to_table, this is fine since we're just materializing the table from record batches - in
_to_requested_schema, the 2 places where_to_requested_schemais called setsinclude_field_ids=True(1, 2) - in
ArrowProjectionVisitor, but this is only called here get uses theinclude_field_idsfrom_to_requested_schema, which setsinclude_field_ids=True
Fixes #1798 <!-- Thanks for opening a pull request! --> <!-- In the case this PR will resolve an issue, please replace ${GITHUB_ISSUE_ID} below with the actual Github issue id. --> <!-- Closes #${GITHUB_ISSUE_ID} --> # Rationale for this change # Are these changes tested? # Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- In the case of user-facing changes, please add the changelog label. -->
Fixes apache#1798 <!-- Thanks for opening a pull request! --> <!-- In the case this PR will resolve an issue, please replace ${GITHUB_ISSUE_ID} below with the actual Github issue id. --> <!-- Closes #${GITHUB_ISSUE_ID} --> # Rationale for this change # Are these changes tested? # Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- In the case of user-facing changes, please add the changelog label. -->
2 participants
Fixes #1798
Rationale for this change
Are these changes tested?
Are there any user-facing changes?