crunch-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Gabriel Reid (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (CRUNCH-286) ability to specify a different function for combiner & reducer
Date Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:03:22 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CRUNCH-286?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13810215#comment-13810215
] 

Gabriel Reid commented on CRUNCH-286:
-------------------------------------

Very weird with that missing comment -- I've got it in my mail as well. I'll post it again
here just for completeness:

{quote}
I'm good with the impl that Stefan put up, combined with (most) of the tests that you added
in the last patch. This means not running the map-phase combiner function in a MemPipeline,
which I think is the fine. The main thing I wanted to check is that there's nobody who has
anything against adding a new method to PGroupedTable.

If there aren't any objections to that approach, I'll rework your last patch a bit to remove
the expectations on map-phase CombineFns in MemPipeline.
{quote}

> ability to specify a different function for combiner & reducer
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CRUNCH-286
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CRUNCH-286
>             Project: Crunch
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: Core
>            Reporter: Stefan De Smit
>            Assignee: Josh Wills
>            Priority: Minor
>         Attachments: 0001-add-combineValues-method-with-2-function-arguments.patch, 0002-.patch,
CRUNCH-286-prototype.patch
>
>
> Extend PGroupedTable with an extra combineValues function that accepts 2 functions: 1
for combiner phase, 1 for reducer phase.
> This way, different algorithm can be applied.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1#6144)

Mime
View raw message