Hi, thank you all for your replies.
I switched to using 'hive.io.filter.text' inline with Peters reply. I also applied the filter negotiation mechanism (HiveStoragePredicateHandler) in my storage handler. It works very well (so far) even though the filter negotiation mechanism is a bit limited in the allowed expression. I'll bring up that question in a separate thread. Br, Petter 2013/12/5 Peter Marron <peter.mar...@trilliumsoftware.com> > Hi, > > > > Sorry for the late reply. > > Maybe the property ‘hive.io.filter.expr.serialized’ is something that can > help? > > It works for me, and it certainly works in the case where the query does > not > > result in a Map/Reduce (which is something that I rely on). > > > > (If you google you should be able to find out about it.) > > > > Regards, > > > > *Peter Marron* > > Senior Developer, Research & Development > > > > Office: +44 *(0) 118-940-7609* peter.mar...@trilliumsoftware.com > > Theale Court First Floor, 11-13 High Street, Theale, RG7 5AH, UK > > <https://www.facebook.com/pages/Trillium-Software/109184815778307> > > <https://twitter.com/TrilliumSW> > > <http://www.linkedin.com/company/17710> > > > > *www.trilliumsoftware.com <http://www.trilliumsoftware.com/>* > > Be Certain About Your Data. Be Trillium Certain. > > > > *From:* Petter von Dolwitz (Hem) [mailto:petter.von.dolw...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* 03 December 2013 12:46 > *To:* user@hive.apache.org > *Subject:* hive.query.string not reflecting the current query > > > > Hi, > > I use hive 0.11 with a five machine cluster. I am reading the property > hive.query.string from a custom RecordReader (used for reading external > tables). > > If I first invoke a query like > > select * from mytable where mycolumn='myvalue'; > > I get the correct query string in this property. > > If I then invoke > > select * from mytable limit 100; > > the property hive.query.string still contains the first query. Seems like > hive uses local mode for the second query. Don't know if it is related. > > Anybody knows why the query string is not updated in the second case? > > Thanks, > > Petter >
<<image001.png>>
<<image002.png>>
<<image004.png>>
<<image003.png>>
