[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-25699?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17482313#comment-17482313
]
Sergey Nuyanzin commented on FLINK-25699:
-----------------------------------------
thanks for your comments.
Regarding comparison {{actual vs expected }} instead of toString comparison it
is also possible to compare the result of {{MAP[]}} and cardinality. It will
allow to independent on string representation (may be except maps with
cardinality less than 2). The drawback is that for one map need to write more
tests e.g.
{code:scala}
testAllApis(
map(1, 2L , 3, 4L).at(1),
"map(1, 2L, 3, 4L).at(1)",
"MAP[1, CAST(2 AS BIGINT), 3, CAST(4 AS BIGINT)][1]",
"2")
testAllApis(
map(1, 2L , 3, 4L).at(3),
"map(1, 2L, 3, 4L).at(3)",
"MAP[1, CAST(2 AS BIGINT), 3, CAST(4 AS BIGINT)][3]",
"4")
testAllApis(
map(1, 2L , 3, 4L).cardinality(),
"map(1, 2L, 3, 4L).cardinality()",
"CARDINALITY(MAP[1, CAST(2 AS BIGINT), 3, CAST(4 AS BIGINT)])",
"2")
{code}
> Use HashMap for MAP value constructors
> --------------------------------------
>
> Key: FLINK-25699
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-25699
> Project: Flink
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: Table SQL / Runtime
> Reporter: Timo Walther
> Assignee: Sergey Nuyanzin
> Priority: Major
>
> Currently, the usage of maps is inconsistent. It is not ensured that
> duplicate keys get eliminated. For CAST and output conversion this is solved.
> However, we should have a similar implementation in MAP value constructor
> like in CAST.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.1#820001)
