Sorry to reply to my question post but I've found a workaround that I
thought I should put here:
use embedded pig
access the schema with boundscript.describe().
input the schema as a parameter into the udf call.
On 14 November 2012 16:17, Martin Goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I normally deal with very large tuples with many fields. Its a pain to
> deal with these in python udfs since I can't figure out a way to input
> schemas into the udf. I have to hard code the column number in the UDFs,
> which is a maintenance nightmare.
> It seems that java UDFs receive the full tuple in their exec methods so
> that the correct fields can be identified, whereas python UDFs only receive
> lists objects (with field names stripped). Is there any way to get the
> behaviour of python UDFs to conform to the java behaviour?
> Thanks for any ideas