[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-6430?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13997172#comment-13997172
]
Sergey Shelukhin commented on HIVE-6430:
----------------------------------------
Hmm... I cannot repro this... tried JDK 6 or 7, clean build or not, and with
modifications. Can you make an addendum patch that fixes it? So I could apply
on top
> MapJoin hash table has large memory overhead
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HIVE-6430
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-6430
> Project: Hive
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Sergey Shelukhin
> Assignee: Sergey Shelukhin
> Attachments: HIVE-6430.01.patch, HIVE-6430.02.patch,
> HIVE-6430.03.patch, HIVE-6430.04.patch, HIVE-6430.05.patch,
> HIVE-6430.06.patch, HIVE-6430.07.patch, HIVE-6430.08.patch,
> HIVE-6430.09.patch, HIVE-6430.10.patch, HIVE-6430.11.patch,
> HIVE-6430.12.patch, HIVE-6430.12.patch, HIVE-6430.13.patch, HIVE-6430.patch
>
>
> Right now, in some queries, I see that storing e.g. 4 ints (2 for key and 2
> for row) can take several hundred bytes, which is ridiculous. I am reducing
> the size of MJKey and MJRowContainer in other jiras, but in general we don't
> need to have java hash table there. We can either use primitive-friendly
> hashtable like the one from HPPC (Apache-licenced), or some variation, to map
> primitive keys to single row storage structure without an object per row
> (similar to vectorization).
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
