On Mon, 27 Aug 2018 at 13:04, Ankur Gupta
wrote:
> Thanks all for your responses.
>
> So I believe a solution that accomplishes the following will be a good
> solution:
>
> 1. Writes logs to Hdfs asynchronously
>
In the limit, this could perform just as slowly at shutdown time as
synchronous log
+1 (non-binding)
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 9:12 AM Reynold Xin wrote:
> +1 on this, on the condition that we can come up with a design that will
> remove the existing plans.
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 11:00 AM Ryan Blue wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> From discussion on the proposal doc and the
+1 (non-binding)
On 4 June 2018 at 11:15, Bryan Cutler wrote:
> +1
>
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 10:18 AM, Joseph Bradley
> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 10:16 AM, Mark Hamstra
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 3:29 PM Marcelo Vanzin
>>> wrote:
>>>
Please vote
+1
(I hope there will be a fuller design document to review, since the SPIP is
really light on details).
On 4 June 2018 at 10:17, Joseph Bradley wrote:
> +1
>
> On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 9:59 AM, Weichen Xu
> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 3:41 PM, Xiao Li wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> 2
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/21302
On 11 May 2018 at 11:47, Henry Robinson wrote:
> I was planning to do so shortly.
>
> Henry
>
> On 11 May 2018 at 11:45, Ryan Blue wrote:
>
>> The Parquet Java 1.8.3 release is out. Has anyone started a PR to update,
>>
dd SPARK-24067 today assuming there's no
>> objections
>>
>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 1:22 PM, Henry Robinson wrote:
>> > +1, I'd like to get a release out with SPARK-23852 fixed. The Parquet
>> > community are about to release 1.8.3 - the voting perio
+1, I'd like to get a release out with SPARK-23852 fixed. The Parquet
community are about to release 1.8.3 - the voting period closes tomorrow -
and I've tested it with Spark 2.3 and confirmed the bug is fixed. Hopefully
it is released and I can post the version change to branch-2.3 before you
star
2018 at 1:23 PM, Reynold Xin wrote:
>
>> Seems like this would make sense... we usually make maintenance releases
>> for bug fixes after a month anyway.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Henry Robinson
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
&
I don't know about parquet-cpp, but yeah, the only implementation I've seen
writing the half-completed stats is Impala. (as you know, that's compliant
with the spec, just an unusual choice).
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:35 PM, Henry Robinson wrote:
>
>> Hi all -
>>
Hi all -
SPARK-23852 (where a query can silently give wrong results thanks to a
predicate pushdown bug in Parquet) is a fairly bad bug. In other projects
I've been involved with, we've released maintenance releases for bugs of
this severity.
Since Spark 2.4.0 is probably a while away, I wanted to
(My vote is non-binding, of course).
On 28 November 2017 at 14:53, Henry Robinson wrote:
> +1, tests all pass for me on Ubuntu 16.04.
>
> On 28 November 2017 at 10:36, Herman van Hövell tot Westerflier <
> hvanhov...@databricks.com> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>>
+1, tests all pass for me on Ubuntu 16.04.
On 28 November 2017 at 10:36, Herman van Hövell tot Westerflier <
hvanhov...@databricks.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 7:35 PM, Felix Cheung
> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> Thanks Sean. Please vote!
>>
>> Tested various scenarios with R package. Ub
Hi -
I'm digging into some Spark SQL tickets, and wanted to ask a procedural
question about SPARK-22211 and optimizer changes in general.
To summarise the JIRA, Catalyst appears to be incorrectly pushing a limit
down below a FULL OUTER JOIN, risking possibly incorrect results. I don't
believe the
13 matches
Mail list logo
