Skip to content

Conversation

@mineo
Copy link
Contributor

@mineo mineo commented Nov 27, 2015

Top is implemented in terms of takeOrdered, which already maintains the
order, so top should, too.

Top is implemented in terms of takeOrdered, which already maintains the
order, so top should, too.
@srowen
Copy link
Member

srowen commented Nov 27, 2015

I think that's fine, though might say it a little differently. It returns the top k elements according to some ordering, and the k elements are in order ascending/descending.

@mineo
Copy link
Contributor Author

mineo commented Nov 27, 2015

I've used the same wording that the docs of takeOrdered use.

@srowen
Copy link
Member

srowen commented Nov 27, 2015

I see your point, let's go with the same wording then, yes.

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Nov 28, 2015

Test build #2129 has finished for PR 10013 at commit 338c970.

  • This patch passes all tests.
  • This patch merges cleanly.
  • This patch adds no public classes.

asfgit pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 30, 2015
Top is implemented in terms of takeOrdered, which already maintains the
order, so top should, too.

Author: Wieland Hoffmann <[email protected]>

Closes #10013 from mineo/top-order.

(cherry picked from commit 26c3581)
Signed-off-by: Sean Owen <[email protected]>
@srowen
Copy link
Member

srowen commented Nov 30, 2015

Merged to master/1.6

@asfgit asfgit closed this in 26c3581 Nov 30, 2015
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants