I was thinking having one job that do my map task with these key -
value classes and having another job doing my reduce job with a
different key - value class would be a good workaround.
Some map function is required for any data to make it to reduce.
IdentityMapper simply copies all map
.
-- ab
On Apr 19, 2006, at 5:34 PM, Eric Baldeschwieler wrote:
might be cool to special case a reduce on sorted input.
On Apr 18, 2006, at 12:28 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
Stefan Groschupf wrote:
what is the reason that each job that has no mapper defined runs the
IdentityMapper?
Handling different
might be cool to special case a reduce on sorted input.
On Apr 18, 2006, at 12:28 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
Stefan Groschupf wrote:
what is the reason that each job that has no mapper defined runs
the IdentityMapper?
Handling different formats (as discussed) between mapping and
reducing is
Stefan Groschupf wrote:
what is the reason that each job that has no mapper defined runs the
IdentityMapper?
Handling different formats (as discussed) between mapping and reducing
is difficult.
Having one job that just map in the one format and having another job
that just reduce
in a other
Hi,
what is the reason that each job that has no mapper defined runs the
IdentityMapper?
Handling different formats (as discussed) between mapping and
reducing is difficult.
Having one job that just map in the one format and having another job
that just reduce
in a other format would be a
