>
> You could generate your own case classes which have more than the 22
> fields, though.
Actually that is not possible with case classes in Scala 2.10, you would
have to use a normal class if you have more than 22 fields.
This constraint was removed in 2.11.
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org>
wrote:
> If you're using Scala, then you're bound to a maximum of 22 fields in a
> tuple, because the Scala library does not provide larger tuples. You could
> generate your own case classes which have more than the 22 fields, though.
> On Oct 14, 2015 11:30 AM, "Ufuk Celebi" <u...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> > On 13 Oct 2015, at 16:06, schul...@informatik.hu-berlin.de wrote:
>> >
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I am currently working on a compilation unit translating AsterixDB's AQL
>> > into runnable Scala code for Flink's Scala API. During code generation I
>> > discovered some things that are quite hard to work around. I am still
>> > working with Flink version 0.8, so some of the problems I have might
>> > already be fixed in 0.9 and if so please tell me.
>> >
>> > First, whenever a record gets projected down to only a single field
>> (e.g.
>> > by a map or reduce function) it is no longer considered a record, but a
>> > variable of the type of that field. If afterwards I want to apply
>> > additional functions like .sum(0) I get an error message like
>>
>> A workaround is to return Tuple1<X> for this. Then you can run the
>> aggregation. I think that the Tuple0 class has been added after 0.8 though.
>>
>> > "Aggregating on field positions is only possible on tuple data types."
>> >
>> > This is the same for all functions (like write or join) as the "record"
>> is
>> > no longer considered a dataset.
>>
>> What do you mean? At least in the current versions, the join projections
>> return a Tuple type as well.
>>
>> > Second, I found that records longer than 22 fields are not supported.
>> > Whenever I have a record that is longer than that I receive a build
>> error
>> > as
>>
>> Flink’s Tuple classes go up to Tuple25. You can work around this by using
>> a custom PoJo type, e.g.
>>
>> class TPCHRecord {
>> public int f0;
>> ...
>> public int f99;
>> }
>>
>> If possible, I would suggest to update to the latest 0.9 or the upcoming
>> 0.10 release. A lot of stuff has been fixed since 0.8. I think it will be
>> worth it. If you encounter any problems while doing this, feel free to ask
>> here. :)
>>
>> – Ufuk
>
>
