[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DRILL-4743?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15379768#comment-15379768 ]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on DRILL-4743: --------------------------------------- Github user gparai commented on a diff in the pull request: https://github.com/apache/drill/pull/534#discussion_r71012854 --- Diff: exec/java-exec/src/main/java/org/apache/drill/exec/server/options/SystemOptionManager.java --- @@ -251,7 +254,12 @@ public void setOption(final OptionValue value) { final String name = value.name.toLowerCase(); final OptionValidator validator = getValidator(name); - validator.validate(value); // validate the option + /* If the validator depends on other options */ + if (validator instanceof DependentTypeValidators) { + ((DependentTypeValidators)validator).validate(value, this); // validate the option --- End diff -- The validation is also done in the FallbackOptionManager. A testcase is present which checks the validation when changing the option in the session. > HashJoin's not fully parallelized in query plan > ----------------------------------------------- > > Key: DRILL-4743 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DRILL-4743 > Project: Apache Drill > Issue Type: Bug > Affects Versions: 1.5.0 > Reporter: Gautam Kumar Parai > Assignee: Gautam Kumar Parai > Labels: doc-impacting > > The underlying problem is filter selectivity under-estimate for a query with > complicated predicates e.g. deeply nested and/or predicates. This leads to > under parallelization of the major fragment doing the join. > To really resolve this problem we need table/column statistics to correctly > estimate the selectivity. However, in the absence of statistics OR even when > existing statistics are insufficient to get a correct estimate of selectivity > this will serve as a workaround. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)