> it doesn't have to be expand, k, the number of elements returned by
> the combiner, can still be smaller than n,
Right.  Grouping would be the most common case.  It would be possible
to be great than k, as well.  For instance, consider two messages,
both generated on the same worker (W) by two two different vertices,
both bound for another vertex, Z.  A combiner on W could get both of
these messages, do some work on them, as it would have knowledge of
both, and generate some arbitrary number of messages bound for other
vertices (thus saving the shuffle/transfer of the original messages).


On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 12:08 AM, Claudio Martella
<claudio.marte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> it doesn't have to be expand, k, the number of elements returned by
> the combiner, can still be smaller than n, the size of the messages
> parameter. as a first example, you can imagine your vertex receiving
> semantically-different classes/types of messages, and you can imagine
> willing to be summarizing them in different messages, i.e. if your
> messages come along with labels or just simply by the source vertex,
> if required by the algorithm, think of label propagation to have just
> an example, or some sort of labeled-pagerank.
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 3:05 AM, Avery Ching <ach...@apache.org> wrote:
>> I agree that C&A doesn't require it, however, I can't think of why I would
>> want to use a combiner to expand the number of messages.  Can you?
>>
>> Avery
>>
>>
>> On 1/9/12 3:57 PM, Jakob Homan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In my opinion that means reducing to a single message or none at all.
>>>
>>> C&A doesn't require this, however.  Hadoop's combiner interface, for
>>> instance, doesn't require a single  or no value to be returned; it has
>>> the same interface as a reducer, zero or more values.  Would adapting
>>> the semantics of Giraph's combiner to return a list of messages
>>> (possibly empty) make it more useful?
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Claudio Martella
>>> <claudio.marte...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yes, what is you say is completely reasonable, you convinced me :)
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Avery Ching<ach...@apache.org>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Combiners should be commutative and associative.  In my opinion that
>>>>> means
>>>>> reducing to a single message or none at all.  Can you think of a case
>>>>> when
>>>>> more than 1 message should be returned from a combiner?  I know that
>>>>> returning null isn't preferable in general, but I think that
>>>>> functionality
>>>>> (returning no messages), is nice to have and isn't a huge amount of work
>>>>> on
>>>>> our side.
>>>>>
>>>>> Avery
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/9/12 12:13 PM, Claudio Martella wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To clarify, I was not discussing the possibility for combine to return
>>>>>> null. I see why it would be useful, given that combine returns M,
>>>>>> there's no other way to let combiner ask not to send any message,
>>>>>> although i agree with Jakob, I also believe returning null should be
>>>>>> avoided but only used, roughly, as an init value for a
>>>>>> reference/pointer.
>>>>>> Perhaps, we could, but i'm just thinking out loud here, let combine()
>>>>>> return Iterable<M>, basicallly letting it define what to combine to
>>>>>> ({0, 1, k } messages). It would be a powerful extension to the model,
>>>>>> but maybe it's too much.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As far as the size of the messages parameter, I agree with you that 0
>>>>>> messages gives nothing to combine and it would be somehow awkward, it
>>>>>> was more a matter of synching it with the other methods getting the
>>>>>> messages parameter.
>>>>>> Probably, having a more clear javadoc will do the job here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 8:42 PM, Jakob Homan<jgho...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not a big fan of returning null as it adds extra complexity to the
>>>>>>> calling code (null checks, or not, since people usually will forget
>>>>>>> them).  Avery is correct that combiners are application specific.  Is
>>>>>>> it conceivable that one would want to write a combiner that returned
>>>>>>> something for an input of no parameters, ie combining the empty list
>>>>>>> doesn't return the empty list?  I imagine for most combiners,
>>>>>>> combining a single message would result in that message.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Avery Ching<ach...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The javadoc for VertexCombiner#combine() is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  /**
>>>>>>>>   * Combines message values for a particular vertex index.
>>>>>>>>   *
>>>>>>>>   * @param vertexIndex Index of the vertex getting these messages
>>>>>>>>   * @param msgList List of the messages to be combined
>>>>>>>>   * @return Message that is combined from {@link MsgList} or null if
>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>   *         message it to be sent
>>>>>>>>   * @throws IOException
>>>>>>>>   */
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think we are somewhat vague on what a combiner can return to
>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>> various use cases.  A combiner should be particular to a particular
>>>>>>>> compute() algorithm.  I think it should be legal to return null from
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> combiner, in that case, no message should be sent to that vertex.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It seems like it would be an overhead to call a combiner when there
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>> messages.  I can't see a case where that would be useful.  Perhaps we
>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>> change the javadoc to insure that msgList must contain at least one
>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>> to have combine() being called.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Avery
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 1/9/12 5:37 AM, Claudio Martella wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Sebastian,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> yes, that was my point, I agree completely with you.
>>>>>>>>> Fixing my test was not the issue, my question was whether we want to
>>>>>>>>> define explicitly the semantics of this scenario.
>>>>>>>>> Personally, I believe the combiner should be ready to receive 0
>>>>>>>>> messages, as it's the case of BasicVertex::initialize(),
>>>>>>>>> putMessages()
>>>>>>>>> and compute(), and act accordingly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In the particular example, I believe the SimpleSumCombiner is
>>>>>>>>> bugged.
>>>>>>>>> It's true that the sum of no values is 0, but it's also true that
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> null return semantics of combine() is more suitable for this exact
>>>>>>>>> situation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Sebastian Schelter<s...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think we currently implicitly assume that there is at least one
>>>>>>>>>> element in the Iterable passed to the combiner. The messaging code
>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>> invokes the combiner only if at least one message for the target
>>>>>>>>>> vertex
>>>>>>>>>> has been sent.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> However, we should not rely on implicit implementation details but
>>>>>>>>>> explicitly specify the semantics of combiners.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --sebastian
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 09.01.2012 13:29, Claudio Martella wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hello list,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> for GIRAPH-45 I'm touching the incoming messages and hit an
>>>>>>>>>>> interesting problem with the combiner semantics.
>>>>>>>>>>> currently, my code fails testBspCombiner for the following reason:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> SimpleSumCombiner::compute() returns a value even if there are no
>>>>>>>>>>> messages in the iterator (in this case it returns 0) and for this
>>>>>>>>>>> reason the vertices get activated at each superstep.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> At each superstep, under-the-hood, I pass the combiner for each
>>>>>>>>>>> vertex
>>>>>>>>>>> an Iterable, which can be empty:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>     public Iterable<M>      getMessages(I vertexId) {
>>>>>>>>>>>       Iterable<M>      messages =
>>>>>>>>>>> inMessages.getMessages(vertexId);
>>>>>>>>>>>       if (combiner != null) {
>>>>>>>>>>>               M combinedMsg;
>>>>>>>>>>>               try {
>>>>>>>>>>>                       combinedMsg = combiner.combine(vertexId,
>>>>>>>>>>> messages);
>>>>>>>>>>>               }  catch (IOException e) {
>>>>>>>>>>>                       throw new RuntimeException("could not
>>>>>>>>>>> combine",
>>>>>>>>>>> e);
>>>>>>>>>>>               }
>>>>>>>>>>>               if (combinedMsg != null) {
>>>>>>>>>>>                       List<M>      tmp = new ArrayList<M>(1);
>>>>>>>>>>>                       tmp.add(combinedMsg);
>>>>>>>>>>>                       messages = tmp;
>>>>>>>>>>>               } else {
>>>>>>>>>>>                       messages = new ArrayList<M>(0);
>>>>>>>>>>>               }
>>>>>>>>>>>       }
>>>>>>>>>>>       return messages;
>>>>>>>>>>>     }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> the Iterable returned by this methods is passed to
>>>>>>>>>>> basicVertex.putMessages() right before the compute().
>>>>>>>>>>> Now, the question is: who's wrong? The combiner code that returns
>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> sum of 0 over no values, or the framework that calls the combiner
>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>> 0 messages?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>    Claudio Martella
>>>>    claudio.marte...@gmail.com
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
>    Claudio Martella
>    claudio.marte...@gmail.com

Reply via email to