Details

    • Type: New Feature New Feature
    • Status: Resolved
    • Priority: Major Major
    • Resolution: Won't Fix
    • Affects Version/s: None
    • Fix Version/s: None
    • Component/s: grunt, parser
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      A = load foo;
      B = load bar;
      filter A by id > 5;
      join A_1 by id, B by id;
      // or A_filter
      foreach A_1_B generate id;
      store into foobar; // A_1_B_1 or A_filter_B_generate
      Or some such routine?
      We don't have to be explicit no more!

        Activity

        Hide
        Russell Jurney added a comment -

        The other way to do this is... just stick with the last defined relation. Although... I can see that getting tricky to keep up with internally? Unless we just reassign after doing the above?

        Show
        Russell Jurney added a comment - The other way to do this is... just stick with the last defined relation. Although... I can see that getting tricky to keep up with internally? Unless we just reassign after doing the above?
        Hide
        Thejas M Nair added a comment -

        In my opinion, too many rules for implicit relation names would make pig scripts (written by others) hard to read, specially for people who are new to pig. I think it is better to just allow name of preceding relation to be referred using a special notation.

        Show
        Thejas M Nair added a comment - In my opinion, too many rules for implicit relation names would make pig scripts (written by others) hard to read, specially for people who are new to pig. I think it is better to just allow name of preceding relation to be referred using a special notation.
        Hide
        Jonathan Coveney added a comment -

        I like this idea, generally. Daniel and I had discussed something similar a while back. Agree that we need to pin down the syntax.

        What are we trying to fix? Is it extra keystrokes? Is it a proliferation of useless relation names?

        I think there are a couple of things we can make better. I think that Thejas's idea is one of them...a syntax to refer to the previously defined relation would be really cool. I think that should be another JIRA.

        Show
        Jonathan Coveney added a comment - I like this idea, generally. Daniel and I had discussed something similar a while back. Agree that we need to pin down the syntax. What are we trying to fix? Is it extra keystrokes? Is it a proliferation of useless relation names? I think there are a couple of things we can make better. I think that Thejas's idea is one of them...a syntax to refer to the previously defined relation would be really cool. I think that should be another JIRA.
        Hide
        Russell Jurney added a comment -

        I sit there for minutes trying to name my relations. Thats what I want to fix.

        I like Thejas' suggestion better.

        Show
        Russell Jurney added a comment - I sit there for minutes trying to name my relations. Thats what I want to fix. I like Thejas' suggestion better.
        Hide
        Jonathan Coveney added a comment -

        Thejas: I implemented your suggested here https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIG-3090

        Show
        Jonathan Coveney added a comment - Thejas: I implemented your suggested here https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIG-3090
        Hide
        Jonathan Coveney added a comment -

        PIG-3090 does this better, so I'm closing this out

        Show
        Jonathan Coveney added a comment - PIG-3090 does this better, so I'm closing this out

          People

          • Assignee:
            Jonathan Coveney
            Reporter:
            Russell Jurney
          • Votes:
            1 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            3 Start watching this issue

            Dates

            • Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved:

              Development