Thanks - String it is!
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, encoding it might save space, but strings are nice and
> human-readable, especially in the shell, and in the overall scheme of
> things, a string probably isn't really that much larger on disk,
> especially after compression.
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Mike Hugo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've been playing around with the LongCombiner on a table that's summing
> > the counts of output of a MapReduce job, very similar to the WordCount
> > example from the user manual.
> > I started out encoding the values using LongCombiner.FIXED_LEN_ENCODER,
> > have noticed that this can lead to some confusion later on downstream.
> > example, a co-worker was scanning using the shell and was caught off
> > by the encoded values. Also, out of the box, the StatsCombiner example
> > works using String values, not Long values so we built a custom piece to
> > essentially do the same thing with Long values instead.
> > It looks to me like most of the examples I've seen just store things are
> > String values, rather than encoding them. What are the tradeoffs?
> We're at
> > a point where we could pretty easily switch things to just use strings -
> > seems like that might make things more convenient from a maintenance
> > perspective (human readable values) and would allow us to re-use some
> > existing components (e.g. StatsCombiner). Any thoughts?
> > Thanks,
> > Mike