Skip to content

Conversation

@janewangfb
Copy link
Contributor

@janewangfb janewangfb commented Apr 27, 2017

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

Add UDF array_unique which return a new array with all the duplicated elements in the original array removed.

How was this patch tested?

Added various unittests in collectionExpressionsSuite.scala and also in spark-shell, created tables with columns of array type and inserted values with duplicated array elements, ran queries with UDF and verified the results.

@AmplabJenkins
Copy link

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

@HyukjinKwon
Copy link
Member

Hi @janewangfb, it looks we need a JIRA, better PR title and PR description. Please check out http://spark.apache.org/contributing.html.

@srowen
Copy link
Member

srowen commented Apr 27, 2017

Why does this need to be added? If it isn't a standard function somewhere it probably doesn't need to be in Spark

@janewangfb
Copy link
Contributor Author

@srowen We have array_contains UDF. I think it is nice to have one that removes all the duplicated elements.

@janewangfb janewangfb changed the title Add array_unique UDF [SPARK-20494] Implement UDF array_unique in Spark with codegen Apr 27, 2017
@srowen
Copy link
Member

srowen commented Apr 27, 2017

@janewangfb that's because array_contains is a Hive function

@srowen
Copy link
Member

srowen commented May 6, 2017

We should close this

@srowen srowen mentioned this pull request May 17, 2017
@asfgit asfgit closed this in 5d2750a May 18, 2017
zifeif2 pushed a commit to zifeif2/spark that referenced this pull request Nov 22, 2025
## What changes were proposed in this pull request?

This PR proposes to close PRs ...

  - inactive to the review comments more than a month
  - WIP and inactive more than a month
  - with Jenkins build failure but inactive more than a month
  - suggested to be closed and no comment against that
  - obviously looking inappropriate (e.g., Branch 0.5)

To make sure, I left a comment for each PR about a week ago and I could not have a response back from the author in these PRs below:

Closes apache#11129
Closes apache#12085
Closes apache#12162
Closes apache#12419
Closes apache#12420
Closes apache#12491
Closes apache#13762
Closes apache#13837
Closes apache#13851
Closes apache#13881
Closes apache#13891
Closes apache#13959
Closes apache#14091
Closes apache#14481
Closes apache#14547
Closes apache#14557
Closes apache#14686
Closes apache#15594
Closes apache#15652
Closes apache#15850
Closes apache#15914
Closes apache#15918
Closes apache#16285
Closes apache#16389
Closes apache#16652
Closes apache#16743
Closes apache#16893
Closes apache#16975
Closes apache#17001
Closes apache#17088
Closes apache#17119
Closes apache#17272
Closes apache#17971

Added:
Closes apache#17778
Closes apache#17303
Closes apache#17872

## How was this patch tested?

N/A

Author: hyukjinkwon <[email protected]>

Closes apache#18017 from HyukjinKwon/close-inactive-prs.
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.

4 participants