Prashant Kommireddi，
Thank you very much!
And your code seems cool, especially the usage of '*'.
But, I'm still not very sure about the details.
My PIG scripts are as below:
*-- Load IP Segments*
*raw_ip_segment = load ... *
*ip_segs = foreach raw_ip_segment generate ipstart, ipend, name;*
*group_ip_segs = group ip_segs all;*
*
*
*order_ip_segs = foreach group_ip_segs {*
* order_seg = order ip_segs by ipstart, ipend;*
* generate 't' as tag, order_seg;*
*}*
*describe order_ip_segs*
*order_ip_segs: {tag: chararray,order_seg: {ipstart: long,ipend: long,poid:
chararray}}*
*
*
*-- Load IP from LOG*
*ip_log = load ... *
*ip_tag = foreach ip_log generate 't' as tag, ip;*
*
*
*-- Join by tag*
*join_ip_tag = join order_ip_segs by tag, ip_tag by tag;*
*
*
*retain_ip_segs = foreach join_ip_tag generate ip_tag::ip as ip,
order_ip_segs::order_seg as order_seg;*
*-- ip: the ip I want to look up;*
*-- order_seg: ordered ip segments used for BinarySearch*
Can you show me the detailed followings?
Such as the codes of UDF, and the PIG script to call the UDF.
在 2011年12月18日 下午6:17，Prashant Kommireddi <[email protected]>写道：
> to_tuple = FOREACH order_ip_segs GENERATE tag, FLATTEN(order_seq);
>
> result = foreach totuple GetProvinceNameFromIPNum(toSearch, * );
>
>
> 2011/12/18 唐亮 <[email protected]>
>
> > Prashant Kommireddi，
> > How to call your UDF in PIG script?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > 在 2011年12月16日 下午1:12，唐亮 <[email protected]>写道：
> >
> > > Thanks Prashant Kommireddi，
> > >
> > > But my question is:
> > > How to call the UDF in PIG, especially the parameters to put into the
> > UDF.
> > >
> > > 在 2011年12月15日 下午4:05，Prashant Kommireddi <[email protected]>写道：
> > >
> > > Not sure what you mean. Have you tried the code I forwarded? Are you
> > facing
> > >> any issues there?
> > >>
> > >> If your question is regarding binarySearch implementation, here is
> > >> pseudo-code'ish implementation. I have not tested this, please treat
> > this
> > >> as a general idea on how to go about accessing the elements within the
> > >> Tuple.
> > >>
> > >> ALSO, I am assuming you have defined schema for (inner) Tuple
> contents.
> > >>
> > >> public String binarySearch(Tuple tuple, long toSearch, int low, int
> > high)
> > >> {
> > >> if(low > high)
> > >> return "NOT FOUND"; //Handle this the way you would like
> > >>
> > >> if(tuple == null)
> > >> throw new IllegalArgumentException("Tuple is null"); //Handle
> > >> this the way you would like
> > >>
> > >> int mid = (low + high)/2;
> > >> Tuple midTuple = tuple.get(mid);
> > >> String tag = midTuple.get(0).toString();
> > >> long ipstart = (Long)midTuple.get(1);
> > >> long ipend = (Long)midTuple.get(2);
> > >> String loc = midTuple.get(3).toString();
> > >>
> > >> if(toSearch == ipstart) //Or ipend, I am not sure how you want to
> > search
> > >> {
> > >> return loc;
> > >> }
> > >> else if(toSearch < ipstart)
> > >> return binarySearch(tuple, low, mid - 1);
> > >>
> > >> else
> > >> return binarySearch(tuple, mid+1, high);
> > >>
> > >> }
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 2011/12/14 唐亮 <[email protected]>
> > >>
> > >> > Hi Prashant Kommireddi，
> > >> >
> > >> > If so, how should I write the UDF, especially the data types in UDF?
> > >> >
> > >> > 2011/12/15 Prashant Kommireddi <[email protected]>
> > >> >
> > >> > > When you flatten your BAG all your segments are within a single
> > tuple.
> > >> > > Something like
> > >> > >
> > >> > > ((tag, ipstart, ipend, loc), (tag, ipstart, ipend, loc)...(tagN,
> > >> > > ipstartN, ipendN, locN))
> > >> > >
> > >> > > You can access the inner tuples positionally.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Dec 14, 2011, at 6:28 PM, "唐亮" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > Now the question is:
> > >> > > > How should I put all the "IP Segments" in one TUPLE?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Please help me!
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > 2011/12/15 Prashant Kommireddi <[email protected]>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >> Michael,
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> This would have no benefit over using a DistributedCache. For a
> > >> large
> > >> > > >> cluster this would mean poor performance. If the file is static
> > and
> > >> > > needs
> > >> > > >> to be looked-up across the cluster, DistributedCache would be a
> > >> better
> > >> > > >> approach.
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> Thanks,
> > >> > > >> Prashant
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 11:18 AM, jiang licht <
> > >> [email protected]>
> > >> > > >> wrote:
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >>> If that list of ip pairs is pretty static most time and will
> be
> > >> used
> > >> > > >>> frequently, maybe just copy it in hdfs with a high replication
> > >> > factor.
> > >> > > >> Then
> > >> > > >>> use it as a look up table or some binary tree or treemap kind
> of
> > >> > thing
> > >> > > by
> > >> > > >>> reading it from hdfs instead of using distributed cache if
> that
> > >> > sounds
> > >> > > an
> > >> > > >>> easier thing to do.
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>> Best regards,
> > >> > > >>> Michael
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>> ________________________________
> > >> > > >>> From: Dmitriy Ryaboy <[email protected]>
> > >> > > >>> To: [email protected]
> > >> > > >>> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 10:28 AM
> > >> > > >>> Subject: Re: Implement Binary Search in PIG
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>> hbase has nothing to do with distributed cache.
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>> 2011/12/14 唐亮 <[email protected]>
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>>> Now, I didn't use HBase,
> > >> > > >>>> so, maybe I can't use DistributedCache.
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >>>> And if FLATTEN DataBag, the results are Tuples,
> > >> > > >>>> then in UDF I can process only one Tuple, which can't
> implement
> > >> > > >>>> BinarySearch.
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >>>> So, please help and show me the detailed solution.
> > >> > > >>>> Thanks!
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >>>> 在 2011年12月14日 下午5:59，唐亮 <[email protected]>写道：
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >>>>> Hi Prashant Kommireddi，
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>> If I do 1. and 2. as you mentioned，
> > >> > > >>>>> the schema will be {tag, ipStart, ipEnd, locName}.
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>> BUT, how should I write the UDF, especially how should I set
> > the
> > >> > type
> > >> > > >>> of
> > >> > > >>>>> the input parameter?
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>> Currently, the UDF codes are as below, whose input parameter
> > is
> > >> > > >>> DataBag:
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>> public class GetProvinceNameFromIPNum extends
> > EvalFunc<String> {
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>> public String exec(Tuple input) throws IOException {
> > >> > > >>>>> if (input == null || input.size() == 0)
> > >> > > >>>>> return UnknownIP;
> > >> > > >>>>> if (input.size() != 2) {
> > >> > > >>>>> throw new IOException("Expected input's size is 2, but
> is:
> > "
> > >> +
> > >> > > >>>>> input.size());
> > >> > > >>>>> }
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>> Object o1 = input.get(0); * // This should be the IP
> > you
> > >> > want
> > >> > > >>> to
> > >> > > >>>>> look up*
> > >> > > >>>>> if (!(o1 instanceof Long)) {
> > >> > > >>>>> throw new IOException("Expected input 1 to be
> Long,
> > >> but
> > >> > > >>> got "
> > >> > > >>>>> + o1.getClass().getName());
> > >> > > >>>>> }
> > >> > > >>>>> Object o2 = input.get(1); *// This is the Bag of IP
> > >> segs*
> > >> > > >>>>> if (!(o2 instanceof *DataBag*)) { //* Should I
> change
> > >> it to
> > >> > > >>> "(o2
> > >> > > >>>>> instanceof Tuple)"?*
> > >> > > >>>>> throw new IOException("Expected input 2 to be
> > >> DataBag,
> > >> > > >> but
> > >> > > >>>> got
> > >> > > >>>>> "
> > >> > > >>>>> + o2.getClass().getName());
> > >> > > >>>>> }
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>> ........... other codes ...........
> > >> > > >>>>> }
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>> }
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>> 在 2011年12月14日 下午3:16，Prashant Kommireddi <
> [email protected]
> > >> >写道：
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>> Seems like at the end of this you have a Single bag with all
> > the
> > >> > > >>>> elements,
> > >> > > >>>>>> and somehow you would like to check whether an element
> exists
> > >> in
> > >> > it
> > >> > > >>>> based
> > >> > > >>>>>> on ipstart/end.
> > >> > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>> 1. Use FLATTEN
> > >> > > >> http://pig.apache.org/docs/r0.9.1/basic.html#flatten-
> > >> > > >>>>>> this will convert the Bag to Tuple: to_tuple = FOREACH
> > >> > > >>> order_ip_segs
> > >> > > >>>>>> GENERATE tag, FLATTEN(order_seq); ---- This is O(n)
> > >> > > >>>>>> 2. Now write a UDF that can access the elements
> positionally
> > >> for
> > >> > > >> the
> > >> > > >>>>>> BinarySearch
> > >> > > >>>>>> 3. Dmitriy and Jonathan's ideas with DistributedCache
> could
> > >> > > >> perform
> > >> > > >>>>>> better than the above approach, so you could go down that
> > >> route
> > >> > > >> too.
> > >> > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>> 2011/12/13 唐亮 <[email protected]>
> > >> > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>> The detailed PIG codes are as below:
> > >> > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>> raw_ip_segment = load ...
> > >> > > >>>>>>> ip_segs = foreach raw_ip_segment generate ipstart, ipend,
> > >> name;
> > >> > > >>>>>>> group_ip_segs = group ip_segs all;
> > >> > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>> order_ip_segs = foreach group_ip_segs {
> > >> > > >>>>>>> order_seg = order ip_segs by ipstart, ipend;
> > >> > > >>>>>>> generate 't' as tag, order_seg;
> > >> > > >>>>>>> }
> > >> > > >>>>>>> describe order_ip_segs
> > >> > > >>>>>>> order_ip_segs: {tag: chararray,order_seg: {ipstart:
> > >> long,ipend:
> > >> > > >>>>>> long,poid:
> > >> > > >>>>>>> chararray}}
> > >> > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>> Here, the order_ip_segs::order_seg is a BAG,
> > >> > > >>>>>>> how can I transer it to a TUPLE?
> > >> > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>> And can I access the TUPLE randomly in UDF?
> > >> > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>> 在 2011年12月14日 下午2:41，唐亮 <[email protected]>写道：
> > >> > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>> Then how can I transfer all the items in Bag to a Tuple?
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>> 2011/12/14 Jonathan Coveney <[email protected]>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> It's funny, but if you look wayyyy in the past, I
> actually
> > >> > > >> asked
> > >> > > >>> a
> > >> > > >>>>>> bunch
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> of
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> questions that circled around, literally, this exact
> > >> problem.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> Dmitriy and Prahsant are correct: the best way is to
> make
> > a
> > >> UDF
> > >> > > >>>> that
> > >> > > >>>>>> can
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> do
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> the lookup really efficiently. This is what the maxmind
> > API
> > >> > > >> does,
> > >> > > >>>> for
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> example.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> 2011/12/13 Prashant Kommireddi <[email protected]>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> I am lost when you say "If enumerate every IP, it will
> be
> > >> > > >> more
> > >> > > >>>> than
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> 100000000 single IPs"
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> If each bag is a collection of 30000 tuples it might
> not
> > be
> > >> > > >> too
> > >> > > >>>>>> bad on
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> memory if you used Tuple to store segments instead?
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> (8 bytes long + 8 bytes long + 20 bytes for chararray
> ) =
> > >> 36
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> Lets say we incur an additional overhead 4X times this,
> > >> which
> > >> > > >>> is
> > >> > > >>>>>> ~160
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> bytes
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> per tuple.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> Total per Bag = 30000 X 160 = ~5 MB
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> You could probably store the ipsegments as Tuple and
> test
> > >> it
> > >> > > >> on
> > >> > > >>>>>> your
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> servers.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Dmitriy Ryaboy <
> > >> > > >>>>>> [email protected]>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Do you have many such bags or just one? If one, and
> you
> > >> > > >> want
> > >> > > >>> to
> > >> > > >>>>>> look
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> up
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> many ups in it, might be more efficient to serialize
> > this
> > >> > > >>>>>> relation
> > >> > > >>>>>>> to
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> hdfs,
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> and write a lookup udf that specifies the serialized
> > data
> > >> > > >> set
> > >> > > >>>> as
> > >> > > >>>>>> a
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> file
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> to
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> put in distributed cache. At init time, load up the
> file
> > >> > > >> into
> > >> > > >>>>>>> memory,
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> then
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> for every ip do the binary search in exec()
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 13, 2011, at 7:55 PM, 唐亮 <[email protected]>
> > >> > > >> wrote:
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you all!
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> The detail is:
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> A bag contains many "IP Segments", whose schema is
> > >> > > >>>>>> (ipStart:long,
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ipEnd:long, locName:chararray) and the number of
> tuples
> > >> > > >> is
> > >> > > >>>>>> about
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> 30000,
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and I want to check wheather an IP is belong to one
> > >> > > >> segment
> > >> > > >>>> in
> > >> > > >>>>>> the
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> bag.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I want to order the "IP Segments" by (ipStart, ipEnd)
> > in
> > >> > > >>> MR,
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and then binary search wheather an IP is in the bag
> in
> > >> > > >> UDF.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> If enumerate every IP, it will be more than 100000000
> > >> > > >>> single
> > >> > > >>>>>> IPs,
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I think it will also be time consuming by JOIN in
> PIG.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Please help me how can I deal with it efficiently!
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2011/12/14 Thejas Nair <[email protected]>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> My assumption is that 唐亮 is trying to do binary
> search
> > >> > > >> on
> > >> > > >>>> bags
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> within
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> tuples in a relation (ie schema of the relation has
> a
> > >> > > >> bag
> > >> > > >>>>>>> column).
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> I
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> don't
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> think he is trying to treat the entire relation as
> one
> > >> > > >> bag
> > >> > > >>>>>> and do
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> binary
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> search on that.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> -Thejas
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/13/11 2:30 PM, Andrew Wells wrote:
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think this could be done,
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pig is just a hadoop job, and the idea behind
> hadoop
> > is
> > >> > > >>> to
> > >> > > >>>>>> read
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> all
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> data in a file.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> so by the time you put all the data into an array,
> > you
> > >> > > >>>> would
> > >> > > >>>>>>> have
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> been
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> better off just checking each element for the one
> you
> > >> > > >>> were
> > >> > > >>>>>>> looking
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> for.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what you would get is [n + lg (n)], which will
> > just
> > >> > > >> be
> > >> > > >>>> [n]
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> after
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that into an array.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Second, hadoop is all about large data analysis,
> > >> > > >> usually
> > >> > > >>>> more
> > >> > > >>>>>>> than
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> 100GB,
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> so putting this into memory is out of the question.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Third, hadoop is efficient because it processes
> this
> > >> > > >>> large
> > >> > > >>>>>>> amount
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> of
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> data
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> by splitting it up into multiple processes. To do
> an
> > >> > > >>>>>> efficient
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> binary
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> search, you would need do this in one mapper or one
> > >> > > >>>> reducer.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> My opinion is just don't fight hadoop/pig.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Thejas Nair<
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> [email protected]>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bags can be very large might not fit into memory,
> and
> > >> > > >> in
> > >> > > >>>> such
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> cases
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> some
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or all of the bag might have to be stored on disk.
> > In
> > >> > > >>> such
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> cases, it
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> is
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efficient to do random access on the bag. That is
> > why
> > >> > > >>> the
> > >> > > >>>>>>> DataBag
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not support it.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As Prashant suggested, storing it in a tuple would
> > be
> > >> > > >> a
> > >> > > >>>> good
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> alternative,
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if you want to have random access to do binary
> > search.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Thejas
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/12/11 7:54 PM, 唐亮 wrote:
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How can I implement a binary search in pig?
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In one relation, there exists a bag whose items
> are
> > >> > > >>>> sorted.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I want to check there exists a specific item
> in
> > >> > > >> the
> > >> > > >>>>>> bag.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In UDF, I can't random access items in DataBag
> > >> > > >>> container.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I have to transfer the items in DataBag to an
> > >> > > >>>> ArrayList,
> > >> > > >>>>>>> and
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> this
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> is
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time consuming.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How can I implement the binary search efficiently
> > in
> > >> > > >>> pig?
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
