RussellSpitzer commented on code in PR #12319:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12319#discussion_r1962400715
##########
spark/v3.5/spark/src/main/java/org/apache/iceberg/spark/SparkTableUtil.java:
##########
@@ -1085,4 +1088,43 @@ private ExecutorService getService() {
return service;
}
}
+
+ /**
+ * Returns the first partition spec in an IcebergTable that shares the same
names and ordering as
+ * the partition columns in a given Spark Table. Throws an error if not found
+ */
+ private static PartitionSpec findCompatibleSpec(
+ Table icebergTable, SparkSession spark, String sparkTable) throws
AnalysisException {
+ List<String> parts =
Lists.newArrayList(Splitter.on('.').limit(2).split(sparkTable));
+ String db = parts.size() == 1 ? "default" : parts.get(0);
+ String table = parts.get(parts.size() == 1 ? 0 : 1);
+
+ List<String> sparkPartNames =
+ spark.catalog().listColumns(db, table).collectAsList().stream()
+ .filter(org.apache.spark.sql.catalog.Column::isPartition)
+ .map(org.apache.spark.sql.catalog.Column::name)
+ .map(name -> name.toLowerCase(Locale.ROOT))
+ .collect(Collectors.toList());
+
+ for (PartitionSpec icebergSpec : icebergTable.specs().values()) {
Review Comment:
I don't think we have this in the spec, but the implementation here will
always re-use a spec that is identical rather than creating a new identical
spec. That said either would be valid if duplicates did exist and I don't
really think we need to make that deterministic...
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@iceberg.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@iceberg.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@iceberg.apache.org
