[
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)
