Avro schema: adding a new field with default value - straight default value or a union with null?
So I have an avro record like so (call it v1):
record MyRecord {
array<string> keywords;
}
I'd like to add a field caseSensitive with a default value of false (call it v2). The first approach I have is:
record MyRecord {
array<string> keywords;
boolean caseSensitive = false;
}
According to schema evolution, this is both backward and forward compatible because a reader with the new schema v2 reading a record that was encoded with old writer schema v1 will be able to fill this field with the default value and a reader with older schema v1 will be able to read a record encoded with the new writer schema v2 because it will just ignore the newly added field.
Another way to add this field is by adding a union type of null and boolean with a default value of null, like so:
record MyRecord {
array<string> keywords;
union{null, boolean} caseSensitive = null;
}
This is also backward and forward compatible. I can see that sometimes one would want to use the 2nd approach if there is no clear default value for a field (such as name, address, etc.). But given my use case with a clear default value, I'm thinking of going with the first solution. My question is: is there any other concerns that I'm missing here?
avro backwards-compatibility
asked Nov 20 at 22:18
breezymri
82521530
add a comment |
So I have an avro record like so (call it v1):
record MyRecord {
array<string> keywords;
}
I'd like to add a field caseSensitive with a default value of false (call it v2). The first approach I have is:
record MyRecord {
array<string> keywords;
boolean caseSensitive = false;
}
According to schema evolution, this is both backward and forward compatible because a reader with the new schema v2 reading a record that was encoded with old writer schema v1 will be able to fill this field with the default value and a reader with older schema v1 will be able to read a record encoded with the new writer schema v2 because it will just ignore the newly added field.
Another way to add this field is by adding a union type of null and boolean with a default value of null, like so:
record MyRecord {
array<string> keywords;
union{null, boolean} caseSensitive = null;
}
This is also backward and forward compatible. I can see that sometimes one would want to use the 2nd approach if there is no clear default value for a field (such as name, address, etc.). But given my use case with a clear default value, I'm thinking of going with the first solution. My question is: is there any other concerns that I'm missing here?
avro backwards-compatibility
asked Nov 20 at 22:18
breezymri
82521530
add a comment |
So I have an avro record like so (call it v1):
record MyRecord {
array<string> keywords;
}
I'd like to add a field caseSensitive with a default value of false (call it v2). The first approach I have is:
record MyRecord {
array<string> keywords;
boolean caseSensitive = false;
}
According to schema evolution, this is both backward and forward compatible because a reader with the new schema v2 reading a record that was encoded with old writer schema v1 will be able to fill this field with the default value and a reader with older schema v1 will be able to read a record encoded with the new writer schema v2 because it will just ignore the newly added field.
Another way to add this field is by adding a union type of null and boolean with a default value of null, like so:
record MyRecord {
array<string> keywords;
union{null, boolean} caseSensitive = null;
}
This is also backward and forward compatible. I can see that sometimes one would want to use the 2nd approach if there is no clear default value for a field (such as name, address, etc.). But given my use case with a clear default value, I'm thinking of going with the first solution. My question is: is there any other concerns that I'm missing here?
avro backwards-compatibility
asked Nov 20 at 22:18
breezymri
82521530
So I have an avro record like so (call it v1):
record MyRecord {
array<string> keywords;
}
I'd like to add a field caseSensitive with a default value of false (call it v2). The first approach I have is:
record MyRecord {
array<string> keywords;
boolean caseSensitive = false;
}
According to schema evolution, this is both backward and forward compatible because a reader with the new schema v2 reading a record that was encoded with old writer schema v1 will be able to fill this field with the default value and a reader with older schema v1 will be able to read a record encoded with the new writer schema v2 because it will just ignore the newly added field.
Another way to add this field is by adding a union type of null and boolean with a default value of null, like so:
record MyRecord {
array<string> keywords;
union{null, boolean} caseSensitive = null;
}
This is also backward and forward compatible. I can see that sometimes one would want to use the 2nd approach if there is no clear default value for a field (such as name, address, etc.). But given my use case with a clear default value, I'm thinking of going with the first solution. My question is: is there any other concerns that I'm missing here?
avro backwards-compatibility
avro backwards-compatibility
asked Nov 20 at 22:18
breezymri
82521530
asked Nov 20 at 22:18
breezymri
82521530
asked Nov 20 at 22:18
breezymri
82521530
asked Nov 20 at 22:18
breezymri
82521530
asked Nov 20 at 22:18
breezymri
82521530
82521530
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
There will be a potential issue with writers in the first case--apparently writers do not use default values. So a writer writing "old data" (missing the new field--so writer is publishing a record with the "keywords" field only) will blow up against the first schema. Same writer using second schema will be successful, and the "caseSensitive" field will be set to null in the resulting message.
answered Nov 28 at 23:15
chacmool
5661917
hmm, so if that is true, then as long as I can ensure that all my writers will be on new schema with the migration, then I'm good, correct?
– breezymri
Nov 29 at 0:10
I think so, but I'm not an expert :). I just happened to be looking at the writer issue recently, so am aware of that aspect. As far as I know, readers do use default values, so you should be good.
– chacmool
Nov 29 at 1:38
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53402440%2favro-schema-adding-a-new-field-with-default-value-straight-default-value-or-a%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
There will be a potential issue with writers in the first case--apparently writers do not use default values. So a writer writing "old data" (missing the new field--so writer is publishing a record with the "keywords" field only) will blow up against the first schema. Same writer using second schema will be successful, and the "caseSensitive" field will be set to null in the resulting message.
answered Nov 28 at 23:15
chacmool
5661917
hmm, so if that is true, then as long as I can ensure that all my writers will be on new schema with the migration, then I'm good, correct?
– breezymri
Nov 29 at 0:10
I think so, but I'm not an expert :). I just happened to be looking at the writer issue recently, so am aware of that aspect. As far as I know, readers do use default values, so you should be good.
– chacmool
Nov 29 at 1:38
add a comment |
There will be a potential issue with writers in the first case--apparently writers do not use default values. So a writer writing "old data" (missing the new field--so writer is publishing a record with the "keywords" field only) will blow up against the first schema. Same writer using second schema will be successful, and the "caseSensitive" field will be set to null in the resulting message.
answered Nov 28 at 23:15
chacmool
5661917
hmm, so if that is true, then as long as I can ensure that all my writers will be on new schema with the migration, then I'm good, correct?
– breezymri
Nov 29 at 0:10
I think so, but I'm not an expert :). I just happened to be looking at the writer issue recently, so am aware of that aspect. As far as I know, readers do use default values, so you should be good.
– chacmool
Nov 29 at 1:38
add a comment |
There will be a potential issue with writers in the first case--apparently writers do not use default values. So a writer writing "old data" (missing the new field--so writer is publishing a record with the "keywords" field only) will blow up against the first schema. Same writer using second schema will be successful, and the "caseSensitive" field will be set to null in the resulting message.
answered Nov 28 at 23:15
chacmool
5661917
There will be a potential issue with writers in the first case--apparently writers do not use default values. So a writer writing "old data" (missing the new field--so writer is publishing a record with the "keywords" field only) will blow up against the first schema. Same writer using second schema will be successful, and the "caseSensitive" field will be set to null in the resulting message.
answered Nov 28 at 23:15
chacmool
5661917
answered Nov 28 at 23:15
chacmool
5661917
answered Nov 28 at 23:15
chacmool
5661917
answered Nov 28 at 23:15
chacmool
5661917
5661917
hmm, so if that is true, then as long as I can ensure that all my writers will be on new schema with the migration, then I'm good, correct?
– breezymri
Nov 29 at 0:10
I think so, but I'm not an expert :). I just happened to be looking at the writer issue recently, so am aware of that aspect. As far as I know, readers do use default values, so you should be good.
– chacmool
Nov 29 at 1:38
add a comment |
hmm, so if that is true, then as long as I can ensure that all my writers will be on new schema with the migration, then I'm good, correct?
– breezymri
Nov 29 at 0:10
I think so, but I'm not an expert :). I just happened to be looking at the writer issue recently, so am aware of that aspect. As far as I know, readers do use default values, so you should be good.
– chacmool
Nov 29 at 1:38
hmm, so if that is true, then as long as I can ensure that all my writers will be on new schema with the migration, then I'm good, correct?
– breezymri
Nov 29 at 0:10
hmm, so if that is true, then as long as I can ensure that all my writers will be on new schema with the migration, then I'm good, correct?
– breezymri
Nov 29 at 0:10
I think so, but I'm not an expert :). I just happened to be looking at the writer issue recently, so am aware of that aspect. As far as I know, readers do use default values, so you should be good.
– chacmool
Nov 29 at 1:38
I think so, but I'm not an expert :). I just happened to be looking at the writer issue recently, so am aware of that aspect. As far as I know, readers do use default values, so you should be good.
– chacmool
Nov 29 at 1:38
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53402440%2favro-schema-adding-a-new-field-with-default-value-straight-default-value-or-a%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
