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

        Transition Time In Source Status Execution Times Last Executer Last Execution Date
        Open Open Resolved Resolved
        69d 13h 12m 1 Jonathan Coveney 18/Feb/13 15:52
        Jonathan Coveney made changes -
        Status Open [ 1 ] Resolved [ 5 ]
        Resolution Won't Fix [ 2 ]
        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
        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
        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 -

        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
        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
        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?
        Russell Jurney made changes -
        Field Original Value New Value
        Description PA = 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!
        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!
        Russell Jurney created issue -

          People

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

            Dates

            • Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved:

              Development