If my memory is correct it should actually merge the system properties with td.properties before returning td On Nov 12, 2013 9:36 AM, "Tim Williams" <[email protected]> wrote:
> No joy. I don't see how even that would work unless we're expecting > the system properties to be merged with the tabledescriptor.properties > when the tabledescriptor is returned? > > To check that, I changed TableAdmin.describe locally to merge in the > system properties and it works fine. I'm not sure if that's how you > were thinking it should behave or not though? Thoughts? > > Thanks, > --tim > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Aaron McCurry <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-blur.git;a=blob;f=blur-mapred/src/main/java/org/apache/blur/mapreduce/lib/BlurOutputFormat.java;h=caa350450918003175978924a9478533850eb7c3;hb=blur-console-v2#l397 > > > > I think for the MR job to pickup the custom fields you will need to run > the > > following in order. > > > > TD td1 = new TD(); > > client.create(td1); > > TD td2 = client.describe(td1.name); > > // Then if you use td2 for your MR job you will get the system fields I > > think. > > > > Let me know. > > > > Aaron > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Tim Williams <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> I don't see where the TableContext created in outputformat could have > >> access to the cluster's configuration or jar files. Maybe when the > >> cluster is initialized it should write the configuration and jars to > >> HDFS, making it available to the output format? If so, should the > >> writer be arranged with zk? Or is there another plan I'm not seeing > >> in there? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> --tim > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Aaron McCurry <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > It should be supported, this seems like a bug. > >> > > >> > Aaron > >> > > >> > > >> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Tim Williams <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> It seems to be the case that when building a table with the > >> >> BlurOutputFormat, we need to follow the per-table custom field > >> >> definitions vs. cluster-wide. If there's no plan to support > >> >> cluster-wide custom defs with m/r we should just document the > >> >> per-table version I reckon, thoughts? > >> >> > >> >> Thanks, > >> >> --tim > >> >> > >> >
