Hi Evan, Patrick and Tobias,
So, It worked for what I needed it to do. I followed Yana's suggestion of
using parameterized type of [T <: Product:ClassTag:TypeTag]
more concretely, I was trying to make the query process a bit more fluent
-some pseudocode but with correct types
val table:SparkTa
That might not be enough. Reflection is used to determine what the
fields are, thus your class might actually need to have members
corresponding to the fields in the table.
I heard that a more generic method of inputting stuff is coming.
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Tobias Pfeiffer wrote:
>
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Patrick McGloin
wrote:
>
> I think the type of the data contained in your RDD needs to be a known
> case class and not abstract for createSchemaRDD. This makes sense when
> you think it needs to know about the fields in the object to create the
> schema.
>
E
Hi Amit,
I think the type of the data contained in your RDD needs to be a known case
class and not abstract for createSchemaRDD. This makes sense when you
think it needs to know about the fields in the object to create the schema.
I had the same issue when I used an abstract base class for a col
