Dare I ask why such a query would be used? AFAICT the second group
operation would just stick each record in a bag and create an extra
copy of group on the outside of the bag (but use up a lot more
computational power than a UDF that would just do the same thing
explicitly).
Cheers,
Kris
On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 03:34:58PM -0800, Lin Guo wrote:
> A = load 'foo.txt' using PigStorage as (x : chararray, y : int);
>
> B = group A by x;
> C = group B by group;
> describe C;
>
> -- we got
> -- C: {group: chararray,B: {group: chararray,A: {x: chararray,y: int}}}
>
> D = foreach C generate B.(group, A); -- this works
> describe D;
>
> E = foreach C generate B.(group, A.(x));
> describe E;
> --- pig returns syntax error, but should this work? Or is there a patch for
> it?
>
> thanks,
> lin
--
Kris Coward http://unripe.melon.org/
GPG Fingerprint: 2BF3 957D 310A FEEC 4733 830E 21A4 05C7 1FEB 12B3
