fyi, I merged in a couple jira that were critical (and I thought would be good
to include in the next release) that if we spin another RC will get included,
we should update the jira SPARK-24755 and SPARK-24677, if anyone disagrees we
could back those out but I think they would be good to include.
Tom
On Thursday, July 19, 2018, 8:13:23 PM CDT, Saisai Shao
<sai.sai.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sure, I can wait for this and create another RC then.
Thanks,Saisai
Xiao Li <gatorsm...@gmail.com> 于2018年7月20日周五 上午9:11写道：
Yes. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-24867 is the one I created.
The PR has been created. Since this is not rare, let us merge it to 2.3.2?
Reynold' PR is to get rid of AnalysisBarrier. That is better than multiple
patches we added for AnalysisBarrier after 2.3.0 release. We can target it to
2.4.
Thanks,
Xiao
2018-07-19 17:48 GMT-07:00 Saisai Shao <sai.sai.s...@gmail.com>:
I see, thanks Reynold.
Reynold Xin <r...@databricks.com> 于2018年7月20日周五 上午8:46写道：
Looking at the list of pull requests it looks like this is the ticket:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-24867
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 5:25 PM Reynold Xin <r...@databricks.com> wrote:
I don't think my ticket should block this release. It's a big general
refactoring.
Xiao do you have a ticket for the bug you found?
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 5:24 PM Saisai Shao <sai.sai.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Xiao,
Are you referring to this JIRA
(https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-24865)?
Xiao Li <gatorsm...@gmail.com> 于2018年7月20日周五 上午2:41写道：
dfWithUDF.cache()
dfWithUDF.write.saveAsTable("t")
dfWithUDF.write.saveAsTable("t1")
Cached data is not being used. It causes a big performance regression.
2018-07-19 11:32 GMT-07:00 Sean Owen <sro...@gmail.com>:
What regression are you referring to here? A -1 vote really needs a rationale.
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 1:27 PM Xiao Li <gatorsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
I would first vote -1.
I might find another regression caused by the analysis barrier. Will keep you
posted.
