I thought about that.. but there has to be a better way. And it seems to work just fine in the streaming docs. Particulary the IPs example.
-drd On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Ricky Ho <r...@adobe.com> wrote: > Is this a workaround ? > > If you know the max size of your key, can you make all keys the same size by > prepending them with zeros ... > > So ... > 1324 becomes 001324 > 212 becomes 000212 > 123123 > > After you do the sorting, trim out the preceding zeros ... > > Rgds, > Ricky > -----Original Message----- > From: David Rio [mailto:driodei...@gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 8:34 AM > To: core-user@hadoop.apache.org > Subject: Re: sort example > > On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Ricky Ho <r...@adobe.com> wrote: >> >> I think using a single reducer causes the sorting to be done sequentially >> and hence defeats the purpose of using Hadoop in the first place. > > I agree, but this is just for testing. > Actually I used two reducers in my example. > >> Perhaps you can use a different "partitioner" which partitions the key range >> > into different subranges, with a different reducer work on each subrange. > > Yes, but prior to that, I want to make the basic numerical sorting > work. It seems my args do not get passed to the partitioner class for > some reason. > > -drd >
