Shuporno

There are some interesting problems when using Parquet files > 2GB on HDFS.


If I'm not mistaken, the HDFS APIs that allow you to read offsets (oddly 
enough) returns an int value. Large Parquet blocksize also means you'll end up 
having the file span across multiple HDFS blocks, and that would make reading 
of rowgroups inefficient.


Is there a reason you want to create such a large parquet file?


~ Kunal

________________________________
From: Vitalii Diravka <vitalii.dira...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 9, 2017 4:49:02 AM
To: user@drill.apache.org
Subject: Re: Increasing store.parquet.block-size

Khurram,

DRILL-2478 is a good place holder for the LongValidator issue, it really
works wrong.

But other issue connected to impossibility to use long values for parquet
block-size.
This issue can be independent task or a sub-task of updating Drill project
to a latest parquet library.

Kind regards
Vitalii

On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Khurram Faraaz <kfar...@mapr.com> wrote:

>   1.  DRILL-2478<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DRILL-2478> is
> Open for this issue.
>   2.  I have added more details into the comments.
>
> Thanks,
> Khurram
>
> ________________________________
> From: Shuporno Choudhury <shuporno.choudh...@manthan.com>
> Sent: Friday, June 9, 2017 12:48:41 PM
> To: user@drill.apache.org
> Subject: Increasing store.parquet.block-size
>
> The max value that can be assigned to *store.parquet.block-size *is
> *2147483647*, as the value kind of this configuration parameter is LONG.
> This basically translates to 2GB of block size.
> How do I increase it to 3/4/5 GB ?
> Trying to set this parameter to a higher value using the following command
> actually succeeds :
>     ALTER SYSTEM SET `store.parquet.block-size` = 4294967296;
> But when I try to run a query that uses this config, it throws the
> following error:
>    Error: SYSTEM ERROR: NumberFormatException: For input string:
> "4294967296"
> So, is it possible to assign a higher value to this parameter?
> --
> Regards,
> Shuporno Choudhury
>

Reply via email to