Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
Further, is there a limitation on the data type that you can aggregate on? It
is implemented as a float. I'm not too sure how SerializerDeserializer works,
but for negative numbers wouldn't reading int as a float be a problem?
Original comment by manish.h...@gmail.com
on 2 Dec 2011 at 7:10
Thanks for the bug report. Actually Float.MIN_VALUE is not a fix to the
negative min value either, since FLOAT.MIN_VALUE is the smallest positive
number a float can represent.
A quick fix may be -1*FLOAT.MAX_FALUE, but as you said, handle all numbers as
float may not be a final choice (for efficiency and storage issue). I will try
to find other better alternatives for this.
Original comment by jarod...@gmail.com
on 2 Dec 2011 at 5:14
Could you not initialize the aggregator with the input value to the initialize
function?
Original comment by vinay...@gmail.com
on 2 Dec 2011 at 5:25
Jarod - ah yes, my bad. -1*Float.MAX_VALUE should do the trick. What's your
idea to abstract the data type?
Vinayak - As of now the init function in the aggregators takes only the id of
the aggregate field to be aggregated. Also, the init function is called during
the build/processing of the left table/entity. That would also need to be
changed if the input value needs to be passed to it - involving all the group
operator descriptors and our groupjoin operator descriptor as well. If the init
is changed, it won't be a big deal of rework in the groupjoin.
Original comment by manish.h...@gmail.com
on 3 Dec 2011 at 3:12
Actually we are working on a complete fix for this issue now. This may
have some changes on the existing aggregator interface, but for your
joingroupby operator, you can stick to the existing interface for your
development.
On Dec 2, 2011, at 7:13 PM, "hyracks@googlecode.com"
<hyracks@googlecode.com> wrote:
Original comment by jarod...@gmail.com
on 3 Dec 2011 at 4:00
This issue was updated by revision r860.
Added new aggregator interfaces and group operator implementations, in order to
merge the old interfaces.
A simple integer sum aggregator is added to show the usage of the new
interfaces.
Original comment by jarod...@gmail.com
on 7 Dec 2011 at 12:54
This issue was updated by revision r861.
Added integration test for new aggregator interface: contains tests for sum
aggregation on both in-mem and external group operators.
Original comment by jarod...@gmail.com
on 7 Dec 2011 at 12:57
This issue was updated by revision r862.
Added AVG aggregator using new interface; added two integration tests for AVG
aggregator.
Original comment by jarod...@gmail.com
on 7 Dec 2011 at 2:03
This issue was updated by revision r863.
Added Min/Max String aggregator using the new interface; added two test cases
for both in-mem and external hash group operators.
Original comment by jarod...@gmail.com
on 7 Dec 2011 at 5:48
This issue was updated by revision r864.
Replaced the aggregate state interface by using a single aggregate state class.
Original comment by jarod...@gmail.com
on 7 Dec 2011 at 5:57
This issue was updated by revision r879.
- rewrote the aggregator interface to create a state factory;
- added a wrapper interface for aggregation and changed the original
aggregators to be field aggregators, and added a multi-field aggregator wrapper;
- rewrote test cases for new interface;
- added count field aggregator.
Original comment by jarod...@gmail.com
on 11 Dec 2011 at 3:15
Is this issue still valid? If it has been fixed can we close it?
Original comment by vinay...@gmail.com
on 3 Feb 2012 at 1:20
The bug has been fixed since r1076.
Original comment by jarod...@gmail.com
on 3 Feb 2012 at 2:40
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
manish.h...@gmail.com
on 2 Dec 2011 at 5:28