[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-2253?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13150295#comment-13150295
]
jirapos...@reviews.apache.org commented on HIVE-2253:
-----------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/1304/
-----------------------------------------------------------
(Updated 2011-11-15 08:13:13.468713)
Review request for hive and namit jain.
Changes
-------
Rebased patch to trunk
Summary (updated)
-------
It's very very rare case.. just for code completeness.
<added>
This case had happened in real query. It was not as rare as we thought. Fix
this plz.
This addresses bug HIVE-2253.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-2253
Diffs (updated)
-----
ql/src/java/org/apache/hadoop/hive/ql/parse/SemanticAnalyzer.java d60ba09
ql/src/test/queries/clientpositive/mergejoins.q PRE-CREATION
ql/src/test/results/clientpositive/mergejoins.q.out PRE-CREATION
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/1304/diff
Testing (updated)
-------
Test case added : clientpositive/mergejoins.q
Thanks,
Navis
> Merge failing of join tree in exceptional case
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HIVE-2253
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-2253
> Project: Hive
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Query Processor
> Affects Versions: 0.7.0
> Environment: hadoop 0.20.2, hive 0.7.0
> Reporter: Navis
> Assignee: Navis
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: HIVE-2253-0.8.0.patch, HIVE-2253.1.patch.txt
>
>
> In some very exceptional cases, SemanticAnayzer fails to merge join tree.
> Example is below.
> create table a (val1 int, val2 int)
> create table b (val1 int, val2 int)
> create table c (val1 int, val2 int)
> create table d (val1 int, val2 int)
> create table e (val1 int, val2 int)
> 1. all same(single) join key --> one MR, good
> select * from a join b on a.val1=b.val1 join c on a.val1=c.val1 join d on
> a.val1=d.val1 join e on a.val1=e.val1
> 2. two join keys --> expected to have two MR, but resulted to three MR
> select * from a join b on a.val1=b.val1 join c on a.val1=c.val1 join d on
> a.val1=d.val1 join e on a.val2=e.val2
> 3. by changing the join order, we could attain two MR as first-expectation.
> select * from a join e on a.val2=e.val2 join c on a.val1=c.val1 join d on
> a.val1=d.val1 join b on a.val1=b.val1
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
