Ed, There are some who are of the opinion that these certifications are worthless. I tend to disagree, however, I don't think that they are the best way to demonstrate one's abilities.
IMHO they should provide a baseline. We have seen these types of questions on the list and in the forums. They appear to be taken from a certain vendor's prior certification tests and accumulated over time. The sad thing is that when we respond to newbie questions we need to ask ourselves if the question is real or if they are asking the question because its a certification question. I'd also be careful in expressing your opinion... I wonder how long before a certain someone expresses their displeasure in your comment. ;-) Just saying! :-) On Dec 28, 2012, at 7:20 PM, Edward Capriolo <edlinuxg...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes. another big data, data scientist, no ops, devops, cloud computing > specialist is born. Thank goodness we have multiple choice tests to identify > the best coders and administrators. > > On Friday, December 28, 2012, Michel Segel <michael_se...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Sounds like someone is cheating on a test... > > > > Sent from a remote device. Please excuse any typos... > > Mike Segel > > On Dec 28, 2012, at 3:10 PM, Ted Dunning <tdunn...@maprtech.com> wrote: > > > > Answer B sounds pathologically bad to me. > > A or C are the only viable options. > > Neither B nor D work. B fails because it would be extremely hard to get > > the right records to the right components and because it pollutes data > > input with configuration data. D fails because statics don't work in > > parallel programs. > > > > On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Kshiva Kps <kshiva...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Which one is current .. > > > > What is the preferred way to pass a small number of configuration > > parameters to a mapper or reducer? > > > > > > > > > > > > A. As key-value pairs in the jobconf object. > > > > > > > > B. As a custom input key-value pair passed to each mapper or reducer. > > > >
