t 10:54 PM Koert Kuipers wrote:
> in our inhouse spark version i changed this without trouble and it didnt
> even break any tests
> just some minor changes in CacheManager it seems
>
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 1:12 PM Maryann Xue
> wrote:
>
>> No. The worst case of enab
Koert Kuipers wrote:
> i see. it makes sense to maximize re-use of cached data. i didn't realize
> we have two potentially conflicting goals here.
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 12:41 PM Maryann Xue
> wrote:
>
>> AQE has been turned off deliberately so t
AQE has been turned off deliberately so that the `outputPartitioning` of
the cached relation won't be changed by AQE partition coalescing or skew
join optimization and the outputPartitioning can potentially be used by
relations built on top of the cache.
On a second thought, we should probably
It would be super weird not to support VARCHAR as SQL engine. Banning CHAR
is probably fine, as its semantics is genuinely confusing.
We can issue a warning when parsing VARCHAR with a limit and suggest the
usage of String instead.
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 10:27 AM Wenchen Fan wrote:
> I agree
ld be great. Was there one written up internally that you could
>> share?
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 10:40 AM Maryann Xue
>> wrote:
>>
>>> > It lists 3 cases for how a filter is built, but nothing about the
>>> overall approac
lly that you could
> share?
>
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 10:40 AM Maryann Xue
> wrote:
>
>> > It lists 3 cases for how a filter is built, but nothing about the
>> overall approach or design that helps when trying to find out where it
>> should be placed in the opt
> It lists 3 cases for how a filter is built, but nothing about the overall
approach or design that helps when trying to find out where it should be
placed in the optimizer rules.
The overall idea/design of DPP can be simply put as using the result of one
side of the join to prune partitions of a
BTW, I've actually just done some work on hint error handling, which might
be helpful to what you mentioned:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/24653
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 8:04 PM Maryann Xue
wrote:
> I believe in the SQL standard, the original name cannot be accessed once
> it’s a
id = t2.id;
> 2) select /*+ broadcast(t1) */ * from db.t1 a1 join db.t2 a2 on a1.id =
> a2.id;
>
> 2) is the same as 1) but with aliases. Many users were surprised that 2)
> stopped working.
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:38 PM Maryann Xue wrote:
&g
Yes, and for a good reason: the hint relation has exactly the same scope
with other elements of queries/sub-queries.
Suppose there's a query like:
select /*+ broadcast(s) */ from (select a, b from s) t join (select a, b
from t) s on t1.a = t2.b
If we allowed the hint resolving to "cross" the
+1
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 10:46 PM John Zhuge wrote:
> +1
>
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 8:43 PM Dongjoon Hyun
> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> Dongjoon.
>>
>> On 2019/02/19 04:12:23, Wenchen Fan wrote:
>> > +1
>> >
>> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 10:50 AM Ryan Blue
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi everyone,
>>
11 matches
Mail list logo
