When you have 0 reduces, the map outputs themselves are moved to the output directory for you.
It is also straight forward to open your own file and write to it directory instead of using the output collector. On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Todd Lipcon <t...@cloudera.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 1:13 AM, jason hadoop <jason.had...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > The other alternative you may try is simply to write your map outputs to > > HDFS [ie: setNumReduces(0)], and have a consumer pick up the map outputs > as > > they appear. If the life of the files is short and you can withstand data > > loss, you may turn down the replication factor, to speed the writes. > > > > I'm not sure that would be very easy, since the output is initially written > into a temporary directory. I suppose you could go digging through the > temporary directory to catch the map outputs as they finish, but it's > probably tricky at best and certainly not intended > > -Todd > > > > On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:30 AM, Amr Awadallah <a...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > > > > To add to Todd/Ted's wise words, the Hadoop (and MapReduce) architects > > > didn't impose this limitation just for fun, it is very core to enabling > > > Hadoop to be as reliable as it is. If the reducer starts processing > > mapper > > > output immediately and a specific mapper fails then the reducer would > > have > > > to know how to undo the specific pieces of work related to the failed > > > mapper, not trivial at all. That said, the combiners do achieve a bit > of > > > that for you, as they start working immediately on the map out, but on > a > > > per-mapper basis (not global), so easy to handle failure in that case > > (you > > > just redo that mapper and the combining for it). > > > > > > -- amr > > > > > > > > > Ted Dunning wrote: > > > > > >> I would consider this to be a very delicate optimization with little > > >> utility > > >> in the real world. It is very, very rare to reliably know how many > > >> records > > >> the reducer will see. Getting this wrong would be a disaster. > Getting > > it > > >> right would be very difficult in almost all cases. > > >> > > >> Moreover, this assumption is baked all through the map-reduce design > and > > >> thus doing a change to allow reduce to go ahead is likely to be really > > >> tricky (not that I know this for a fact). > > >> > > >> > > >> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Naresh Rapolu < > > >> nareshreddy.rap...@gmail.com > > >> > > >> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>> My aim is to make the reduce move ahead with reduction as and when it > > >>> gets > > >>> the data required, instead of waiting for all the maps to complete. > If > > >>> it > > >>> knows how many records it needs and compares it with number of > records > > it > > >>> has got until now, it can move on once they become equal without > > waiting > > >>> for all the maps to finish. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > Pro Hadoop, a book to guide you from beginner to hadoop mastery, > > http://www.amazon.com/dp/1430219424?tag=jewlerymall > > www.prohadoopbook.com a community for Hadoop Professionals > > > -- Pro Hadoop, a book to guide you from beginner to hadoop mastery, http://www.amazon.com/dp/1430219424?tag=jewlerymall www.prohadoopbook.com a community for Hadoop Professionals
