tajo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jaewoong Jung <jun...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Timezone issues
Date Thu, 20 Nov 2014 06:56:08 GMT
Yeah, after some more research, I found that TImeDatum is a somewhat
ambiguous data type.

Its original purpose is to represent a time of a day, i.e. hh:mm:ss
part of an instant. So, it could be viewed as instant data though some
may argue it's incomplete to fully represent an instant. Anyway, given
that TimestampDatum has limitation in terms of the time range it can
represent, and given that Tajo doesn't have DateTime data type,
clients should be allowed to use it with a timezone.

I'll change the direction and try to address the issue by fixing the
underflow error.

Thanks for the input. :)

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:24 PM, Jong-young Park <eminency@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, Jaewoong.
> To express time period value, IntervalDatum is existing as I know.
> So I think it is right that TimeDatum is for some time point.
> And TimestampDatum seems it is doing both roles of DateDatum and TimeDatum.
> Regards,
> Jongyoung.
> On Wed Nov 19 2014 at 오후 5:23:40 Jaewoong Jung <jungjw@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It turns out, TAJO-1191 is slightly more complicated than I thought.
>> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAJO-1191)
>> Basically, it's about whether TimeDatum may have a timezone tied with
>> it. I **believe** TimeDatum is originally designed to hold a time
>> period value, not an instant. (TimestampDatum seems to be the
>> canonical container for instants.) So, it doesn't make sense to apply
>> any timezones to TimeDatum values, but it's being done in a few
>> places. And, that's why the test is failing on my machines.
>> I'm going to try to fix it by removing all timezone-related references
>> around the class, but I want to check my assumption with you before I
>> proceed.
>> What do you think about it?

View raw message