I was linking to an older version of the fastbit lib. Sorry for the confusion,
thanks for the help.
Andrew
On Sep 20, 2011, at 2:47 AM, K. John Wu wrote:
> Hi, Andrew,
>
> Here is a tiny example trying to reproduce your test. It seems to produce
> the expected results. Could you please take a quick look to see if it
> matches your use case?
>
> Thanks.
>
> John
>
>
> On 9/19/11 3:17 PM, Olson, Andrew wrote:
>> Hi John,
>> The pos column has the large values, "CT" is UBYTE. So there is a problem
>> with column order as well, maybe fixing that will fix the orderby?
>> Andrew
>>
>> On Sep 19, 2011, at 5:30 PM, K. John Wu wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, Andrew,
>>>
>>> As far as I can tell, you are using the API correctly.
>>>
>>> In the print out, the first column should be "pos" and second column "CT".
>>> Therefore, the first print out is already ordered by pos and the orderby
>>> function has nothing to do.
>>>
>>> If you are actually expecting the second column in the print out to be
>>> "pos," then it is possible other part of the FastBit code is not behaving
>>> as they should..
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/16/11 10:56 AM, Olson, Andrew wrote:
>>>> Hi John,
>>>> I noticed that the orderby isn't actually sorting the table::select
>>>> results. Below is a snippet of my code:
>>>>
>>>> ibis::table *res = tbl->select("pos,CT",qcnd);
>>>> res->dump(std::cout, "\t");
>>>> res->orderby("pos");
>>>> std::cout<< "nRows ="<< res->nRows()<< std::endl;
>>>> res->dump(std::cout, "\t");
>>>>
>>>> And this is the sample output:
>>>> 2 107013068
>>>> 5 107013059
>>>> 6 107013070
>>>> nRows = 3
>>>> binsize = 0
>>>> 2 107013068
>>>> 5 107013059
>>>> 6 107013070
>>>>
>>>> Am I using the API properly? The data is stored across multiple
>>>> partitions.
>>>>
>>>> Andrew
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 31, 2011, at 5:01 PM, K. John Wu wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi, Andrew,
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently, there is no logic in the code to recognize that the two parts
>>>>> of the data are sorted already. Therefore, the orderby call will use a
>>>>> generic sorting procedure.
>>>>>
>>>>> We are contemplating revamping the groupby and orderby operations, we
>>>>> will keep this in mind when we redesign things.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the mean time, hopefully, the sorting cost is not too much and
>>>>> response time of the additional orderby is tolerable..
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8/31/11 1:41 PM, Olson, Andrew wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> I have a data set that is split into two partitions (A and B). Each
>>>>>> partition has columns position and score. The -part.txt file has a
>>>>>> metaTags entry corresponding to the partition (A or B). Usually I query
>>>>>> only one partition at a time, but I would like to query across both
>>>>>> partitions by pointing to the parent directory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> tbl = ibis::table::create(datadir);
>>>>>> res = tbl->select("position,score",qcnd);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> later on I retreive the positions and scores as follows:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> uint64_t ierr = res->getColumnAsUInts("position", positions);
>>>>>> uint64_t ierr = res->getColumnAsUInts("score", scores);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The code that follows expects the positions to be sorted (they are
>>>>>> sorted in each partition - and -part.txt has "sorted = true").
>>>>>> I suspect I need to do this before populating positions[] and scores[]:
>>>>>> sorted_results = res->orderby("position");
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So my question is, since each partition is already sorted by position,
>>>>>> is there logic in place that uses this info to do the orderby more
>>>>>> quickly? On a related note, if I add the orderby() to my code, will it
>>>>>> slow down when querying only one partition (already sorted by position)?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Andrew
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> FastBit-users mailing list
>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>> https://hpcrdm.lbl.gov/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fastbit-users
>>>>
>>
> <ao1109.tar.gz>
_______________________________________________
FastBit-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://hpcrdm.lbl.gov/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fastbit-users
