I would like to be able to decide if I want to use the Algebraic or regular
implementation of an EvalFunc on the front end (planning phase), preferably
in the function constructor. Is there any way to do this? If I implement
the interface the planner will automatically attempt to use it. Returning
null when implementing it in those cases also doesn't work.

Thanks,
Ugljesa

There is one way you could shoe-horn this in.  EvalFuncs can implement funcToArgMapping, which is built to allow functions to pick a different instance of themselves for different types (e.g. SUM(long) vs SUM(double)).  You could implement your logic in this function and then return an EvalFunc with or without Algebraic implemented based on your choice.

Alan.

On Oct 8, 2012, at 12:01 PM, Ugljesa Stojanovic wrote:

> I would like to be able to decide if I want to use the Algebraic or regular
> implementation of an EvalFunc on the front end (planning phase), preferably
> in the function constructor. Is there any way to do this? If I implement
> the interface the planner will automatically attempt to use it. Returning
> null when implementing it in those cases also doesn't work.
>
> Thanks,
> Ugljesa

Thanks Alan, funcToArgMapping did the trick :)

On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Alan Gates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> There is one way you could shoe-horn this in.  EvalFuncs can implement
> funcToArgMapping, which is built to allow functions to pick a different
> instance of themselves for different types (e.g. SUM(long) vs SUM(double)).
>  You could implement your logic in this function and then return an
> EvalFunc with or without Algebraic implemented based on your choice.
>
> Alan.
>
> On Oct 8, 2012, at 12:01 PM, Ugljesa Stojanovic wrote:
>
> > I would like to be able to decide if I want to use the Algebraic or
> regular
> > implementation of an EvalFunc on the front end (planning phase),
> preferably
> > in the function constructor. Is there any way to do this? If I implement
> > the interface the planner will automatically attempt to use it. Returning
> > null when implementing it in those cases also doesn't work.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ugljesa
>
>

Hi!

Out of curiosity: what for? Algebraic works faster in most cases.

Possible solutions:
1) Maybe you can disable the use of combiner or something else that is
related. Maybe if you change the Configuration to
pig.exec.nocombiner=true
that will disable the use of Algebraic, but I am not sure, that's just a thought
2) You can embed pig into Java or Python from where you can construct
pig scripts pro grammatically, using the appropriate UDF
implementation

Best Regards, Ruslan

On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 11:01 PM, Ugljesa Stojanovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would like to be able to decide if I want to use the Algebraic or regular
> implementation of an EvalFunc on the front end (planning phase), preferably
> in the function constructor. Is there any way to do this? If I implement
> the interface the planner will automatically attempt to use it. Returning
> null when implementing it in those cases also doesn't work.
>
> Thanks,
> Ugljesa