yeah.. i see what you are talking about. But it will take extra effort to convert to U type. So, is there any specific reason the way CombineFn created initially that CombineFn will not allow other return type. Was there any constraints (design / complexity) to restrict to this behavior? Thanks,
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Micah Whitacre <[email protected]> wrote: > Chandan, > So let's apply your situation to the types and conversion that is > proposed and break it down where logic will be applied. Say we have a > PCollection that is like the following: > > Mapper 1: > <id1, "Hello"> > <id2, "World"> > <id1, "I like turtles"> > > Mapper 2 > <id2, "Goodbye"> > > This will be represented by the PTable<String, Comment>. We then apply a > MapFn to transform it into PTable<String, Book> and we'd get the following > in our PCollection: > > Mapper 1 > <id1, <"Hello", 1>> > <id2, <"World", 1>> > <id1, <"I like turtles", 1>> > > Mapper 2 > <id2, <"Goodbye", 1>> > > Then if we were to use the GBK + CombineFn, the output of the map phase > would be.. > > Mapper 1 > <id2, <"World", 1>> > <id1, <"I like turtles", 2>> > > Mapper 2 > <id2, <"Goodbye", 1>> > > Notice Mapper 1 would only be emitting 2 items instead of 3 and therefore > less data is sent over the wire and has to be sorted. Also in the reducer > after the GBK is completed the CombineFn would finish its work and you'd > get the following: > > Reducer 1 > <id2, <"Goodbye", 2>> > <id1, <"I like turtles", 2>> > > The only case where this would not improve performance is if you never emit > data for the same key from the same mapper or your mapper doesn't reduce > the size of the data. > > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Chandan Biswas <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > I have PTable<String,Comment>. and getting after reduce PTable<String, > > Book> > > > > T--> Comment{ String comment, String author}, U--> Book{String id, String > > lengthiestComment, int noOfComments} > > > > But wanted to some aggregations in the map side based on some logic > instead > > of all aggregations at reduce side. > > Yes in worst case, data flow over the n/w will remain same, but sorting > > will be improved. > > > > Thanks, > > Chandan > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Josh Wills <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Chandan Biswas <[email protected] > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > Yeah, I agree with Micah that it will not eliminate the reduce phase > > > > entirely. But the dummy object of U suggested by Josh (or converting > > to U > > > > type in map for every record) will not improve performance because > > same > > > > amounts of records will be sorted and aggregated in the reduce phase. > > > > > > > > > I don't think that's true-- the records of type U will be combined on > the > > > map-side, which would reduce the amount of data that is pushed over the > > > network and improve performance. > > > > > > Can you give any additional details about what T and U are in this > > > scenario? :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > But > > > > my point is, can we improve it by applying a combiner where the > > combineFn > > > > provides output as different type. If we have same type, we can use > the > > > > combiner to do some aggregation in map side which improves > performance. > > > > But, can we have some mechanism by which the same advantage can be > > > achieved > > > > when combineFn emits different type. I think, emitting same type by > > > > CombineFn has restricted its use. Can we have new CombineFn that > allows > > > us > > > > to output different type not only same type as input? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Josh Wills <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Yeah, my experience in these kinds of situations is that you need > to > > > come > > > > > up with a "dummy" or singleton version of U for the case where > there > > is > > > > > only a single T and do that conversion on the map side of the job, > > > before > > > > > the combiner runs. I think Chao had an issue like this awhile ago, > > > where > > > > he > > > > > had a PTable<String, Double> and wanted to write a combiner that > > would > > > > > return a PTable<String, Collection<Double>>. The solution was to > > > convert > > > > > the map-side object to a PTable<String, Collection<Double>>, where > > the > > > > > value on the map-side was a singleton list containing just that > > double > > > > > value. Does that sort of trick work here? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Micah Whitacre <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Ok so the feature you are trying to achieve is the proactive > > > > combination > > > > > of > > > > > > data before performing the GBK like the javadoc describes. > > > Essentially > > > > > in > > > > > > that situation the CombineFn is being used as a Combiner[1] to > > > combine > > > > > the > > > > > > data local to that mapper before doing the GBK and then further > > > > combining > > > > > > the data in the reduce operation. It will not necessarily > > eliminate > > > > the > > > > > > need for all processing in the reduce. > > > > > > > > > > > > If you want to use this functionality you will need to do the > > > > following: > > > > > > > > > > > > PTable<S, T> map to PTable<S, U> > > > > > > PTable<S, U> gbk to PGT<S, U> > > > > > > PGT<S, U> combine PTable<S, U> > > > > > > > > > > > > This will take advantage of any optimization provided by the > > > CombineFn. > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] - http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/HadoopMapReduce > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Chandan Biswas < > > > [email protected] > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Micah, > > > > > > > Yes we are using MapFn now. That aggregation and computation is > > > being > > > > > > done > > > > > > > in reduce phase. As CombineFn after GBK runs into map side, > then > > > > those > > > > > > most > > > > > > > computations can be done in map side which are now running in > > > reduce > > > > > > phase. > > > > > > > Some smaller aggregations and computations can be done on > reduce > > > > phase. > > > > > > > My point was to do some aggregation (and create a new object) > in > > > map > > > > > > phase > > > > > > > instead of in reduce phase. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > Chandan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Micah Whitacre < > > [email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandan, > > > > > > > > I think what you are wanting will just be a simple MapFn > > > instead > > > > > of > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > CombineFn. The doc of the CombineFn[1] sounds like what you > > want > > > > > with > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > statement "A special > > > > > > > > DoFn< > > > > > > > http://crunch.apache.org/apidocs/0.7.0/org/apache/crunch/DoFn.html > > > > > > > > > > > implementation > > > > > > > > that converts an > > > > > > > > Iterable< > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://download.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/lang/Iterable.html?is-external=true > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > values into a single value" but it is expecting the value to > be > > > of > > > > > the > > > > > > > same > > > > > > > > time. Since you are wanting to combine the values into a > > > different > > > > > > form > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > should be fairly trivial to write a MapFn that converts the > > > > > Iterable<T> > > > > > > > -> > > > > > > > > U. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://crunch.apache.org/apidocs/0.7.0/org/apache/crunch/CombineFn.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Chandan Biswas < > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was trying to refactoring some stuffs and trying to use > > > > > combineFn. > > > > > > > > > But when I went into deeper, found that I can't do it as > > Crunch > > > > > > doesn't > > > > > > > > > allow it the functionality I needed. For example, I have a > > > > > > > > > PGroupedTable<S,T>. I wanted to apply CombineFn<S,T> on it > > and > > > > > wanted > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > get PCollection<S,U> instead of T. Right now, CombineFn > > allows > > > > only > > > > > > > same > > > > > > > > > type as return value. The use case of this need is that > there > > > > will > > > > > be > > > > > > > > some > > > > > > > > > time saving in sorting. It's natural that when aggregating > > some > > > > > > objects > > > > > > > > at > > > > > > > > > map side can create a new different type object. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any thought on it? Am I missing any thing? If this can be > > > written > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > different way using existing way please let me know. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > Chandan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Director of Data Science > > > > > Cloudera <http://www.cloudera.com> > > > > > Twitter: @josh_wills <http://twitter.com/josh_wills> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Director of Data Science > > > Cloudera <http://www.cloudera.com> > > > Twitter: @josh_wills <http://twitter.com/josh_wills> > > > > > >
