How precise do your counts need to be? Can you accept a fraction of a percent statistical error?
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Aman Sinha <asi...@maprtech.com> wrote: > Drill already does most of this type of transformation. If you do an > 'EXPLAIN PLAN FOR <your count(distinct) query>' > you will see that it first does a grouping on the column and then applies > the COUNT(column). The first level grouping can be done either based on > sorting or hashing and this is configurable through a system option. > > Aman > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 3:30 AM, Marcin Karpinski <mkarpin...@opera.com> > wrote: > > > Hi Guys, > > > > I have a specific use case for Drill, in which I'd like to be able to > count > > unique values in columns with tens millions of distinct values. The COUNT > > DISTINCT method, unfortunately, does not scale both time- and memory-wise > > and the idea is to sort the data beforehand by the values of that column > > (let's call it ID), to have the row groups split at new a new ID boundary > > and to extend Drill with an alternative version of COUNT that would > simply > > count the number of times the ID changes through out the entire table. > This > > way, we could expect that counting unique values of pre-sorted columns > > could have complexity comparable to that of the regular COUNT operator (a > > full scan). So, to sum up, I have three questions: > > > > 1. Can such a scenario be realized in Drill? > > 2. Can it be done in a modular way (eg, a dedicated UDAF or an operator), > > so without heavy hacking throughout entire Drill? > > 3. How to do it? > > > > Our initial experience with Drill was very good - it's an excellent tool. > > But in order to be able to adopt it, we need to sort out this one central > > issue. > > > > Cheers, > > Marcin > > >
