Hmm... if that is the case it sounds like a bug. -- Jacques Nadeau CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Hanifi GUNES <[email protected]> wrote: > Yup. That makes sense. All ~150 minor fragments seem under a sing;e major > fragment though. I should dig in further to see what's going on here. > > -H+ > > 2015-10-28 16:14 GMT-07:00 Jacques Nadeau <[email protected]>: > > > Max width per node is per major fragment per node, not per query. > > > > So you should see no more than 60 minor fragments for any particular > major > > fragment. > > > > Remember that in most cases, a multi-major-fragment query has blocking > > operations in it. > > > > -- > > Jacques Nadeau > > CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio > > > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Hanifi GUNES <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On a 10 node cluster, I am executing a query with the following > > > > > > *alter session set `planner.width.max_per_node`=6;* > > > > > > and see 153 minor fragments reported in the profiles tab whereas I > would > > > expect a max parallelization of 60 cluster-wide. > > > > > > Is not this option bounding the max # of threads per query per node? > > Need a > > > second look here. > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > -Hanifi > > > > > >
