Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

create and use palantir-hadoop profile #51

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

create and use palantir-hadoop profile #51

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

sjrand
Copy link

@sjrand sjrand commented Nov 14, 2016

@sjrand
Copy link
Author

sjrand commented Nov 14, 2016

Apparently the build failed because of bash: line 7: BINTRAY_USERNAME: unbound variable. Does this just mean that my fork doesn't have access to that env variable?

ash211
ash211 reviewed Nov 14, 2016
View reviewed changes
pom.xml
@@ -2543,6 +2543,16 @@
</profile>

<profile>
<id>palantir-hadoop</id>
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

call this hadoop-palantir to match the other profiles hadoop-X format

@ash211
Copy link

ash211 commented Nov 14, 2016

@sjrand yes I believe that env variables are only available for forks coming from the github.com/palantir repo, not personal repos. Change your PR to be from palantir/spark and I think that'll work

@sjrand
Copy link
Author

sjrand commented Nov 14, 2016

I don't think I can make the PR from palantir/spark without write access to the repo?

@sjrand
Copy link
Author

sjrand commented Nov 14, 2016

(In other words can I have write perms?)

@ash211
Copy link

ash211 commented Nov 14, 2016

@sjrand added

@sjrand sjrand closed this Nov 14, 2016
@sjrand sjrand deleted the sr/use-palantir-hadoop branch November 14, 2016 18:15
@sjrand
Copy link
Author

sjrand commented Nov 14, 2016

Closed in favor of #54, which is the same change, but from a branch within this repo.

@sjrand sjrand mentioned this pull request Nov 14, 2016
Closed
ash211 pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 16, 2017
@mccheah @ash211
Use OpenJDK8's official Alpine image. (#51)
770ea6a
mccheah added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 27, 2017
@mccheah @ash211
Use OpenJDK8's official Alpine image. (#51)
81bd355
rahij pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 21, 2020
@imback82 @cloud-fan
[SPARK-32282][SQL] Improve EnsureRquirement.reorderJoinKeys to handle…
1c781a4 
… more scenarios such as PartitioningCollection

### What changes were proposed in this pull request?

This PR proposes to improve  `EnsureRquirement.reorderJoinKeys` to handle the following scenarios:
1. If the keys cannot be reordered to match the left-side `HashPartitioning`, consider the right-side `HashPartitioning`.
2. Handle `PartitioningCollection`, which may contain `HashPartitioning`

### Why are the changes needed?

1. For the scenario 1), the current behavior matches either the left-side `HashPartitioning` or the right-side `HashPartitioning`. This means that if both sides are `HashPartitioning`, it will try to match only the left side.
The following will not consider the right-side `HashPartitioning`:
```
val df1 = (0 until 10).map(i => (i % 5, i % 13)).toDF("i1", "j1")
val df2 = (0 until 10).map(i => (i % 7, i % 11)).toDF("i2", "j2")
df1.write.format("parquet").bucketBy(4, "i1", "j1").saveAsTable("t1")df2.write.format("parquet").bucketBy(4, "i2", "j2").saveAsTable("t2")
val t1 = spark.table("t1")
val t2 = spark.table("t2")
val join = t1.join(t2, t1("i1") === t2("j2") && t1("i1") === t2("i2"))
 join.explain

== Physical Plan ==
*(5) SortMergeJoin [i1#26, i1#26], [j2#31, i2#30], Inner
:- *(2) Sort [i1#26 ASC NULLS FIRST, i1#26 ASC NULLS FIRST], false, 0
:  +- Exchange hashpartitioning(i1#26, i1#26, 4), true, [id=#69]
:     +- *(1) Project [i1#26, j1#27]
:        +- *(1) Filter isnotnull(i1#26)
:           +- *(1) ColumnarToRow
:              +- FileScan parquet default.t1[i1#26,j1#27] Batched: true, DataFilters: [isnotnull(i1#26)], Format: Parquet, Location: InMemoryFileIndex[..., PartitionFilters: [], PushedFilters: [IsNotNull(i1)], ReadSchema: struct<i1:int,j1:int>, SelectedBucketsCount: 4 out of 4
+- *(4) Sort [j2#31 ASC NULLS FIRST, i2#30 ASC NULLS FIRST], false, 0.
   +- Exchange hashpartitioning(j2#31, i2#30, 4), true, [id=#79].       <===== This can be removed
      +- *(3) Project [i2#30, j2#31]
         +- *(3) Filter (((j2#31 = i2#30) AND isnotnull(j2#31)) AND isnotnull(i2#30))
            +- *(3) ColumnarToRow
               +- FileScan parquet default.t2[i2#30,j2#31] Batched: true, DataFilters: [(j2#31 = i2#30), isnotnull(j2#31), isnotnull(i2#30)], Format: Parquet, Location: InMemoryFileIndex[..., PartitionFilters: [], PushedFilters: [IsNotNull(j2), IsNotNull(i2)], ReadSchema: struct<i2:int,j2:int>, SelectedBucketsCount: 4 out of 4

```

2.  For the scenario 2), the current behavior does not handle `PartitioningCollection`:
```
val df1 = (0 until 100).map(i => (i % 5, i % 13)).toDF("i1", "j1")
val df2 = (0 until 100).map(i => (i % 7, i % 11)).toDF("i2", "j2")
val df3 = (0 until 100).map(i => (i % 5, i % 13)).toDF("i3", "j3")
val join = df1.join(df2, df1("i1") === df2("i2") && df1("j1") === df2("j2")) // PartitioningCollection
val join2 = join.join(df3, join("j1") === df3("j3") && join("i1") === df3("i3"))
join2.explain

== Physical Plan ==
*(9) SortMergeJoin [j1#8, i1#7], [j3#30, i3#29], Inner
:- *(6) Sort [j1#8 ASC NULLS FIRST, i1#7 ASC NULLS FIRST], false, 0.       <===== This can be removed
:  +- Exchange hashpartitioning(j1#8, i1#7, 5), true, [id=#58]             <===== This can be removed
:     +- *(5) SortMergeJoin [i1#7, j1#8], [i2#18, j2#19], Inner
:        :- *(2) Sort [i1#7 ASC NULLS FIRST, j1#8 ASC NULLS FIRST], false, 0
:        :  +- Exchange hashpartitioning(i1#7, j1#8, 5), true, [id=#45]
:        :     +- *(1) Project [_1#2 AS i1#7, _2#3 AS j1#8]
:        :        +- *(1) LocalTableScan [_1#2, _2#3]
:        +- *(4) Sort [i2#18 ASC NULLS FIRST, j2#19 ASC NULLS FIRST], false, 0
:           +- Exchange hashpartitioning(i2#18, j2#19, 5), true, [id=#51]
:              +- *(3) Project [_1#13 AS i2#18, _2#14 AS j2#19]
:                 +- *(3) LocalTableScan [_1#13, _2#14]
+- *(8) Sort [j3#30 ASC NULLS FIRST, i3#29 ASC NULLS FIRST], false, 0
   +- Exchange hashpartitioning(j3#30, i3#29, 5), true, [id=#64]
      +- *(7) Project [_1#24 AS i3#29, _2#25 AS j3#30]
         +- *(7) LocalTableScan [_1#24, _2#25]
```
### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change?

Yes, now from the above examples, the shuffle/sort nodes pointed by `This can be removed` are now removed:
1. Senario 1):
```
== Physical Plan ==
*(4) SortMergeJoin [i1#26, i1#26], [i2#30, j2#31], Inner
:- *(2) Sort [i1#26 ASC NULLS FIRST, i1#26 ASC NULLS FIRST], false, 0
:  +- Exchange hashpartitioning(i1#26, i1#26, 4), true, [id=#67]
:     +- *(1) Project [i1#26, j1#27]
:        +- *(1) Filter isnotnull(i1#26)
:           +- *(1) ColumnarToRow
:              +- FileScan parquet default.t1[i1#26,j1#27] Batched: true, DataFilters: [isnotnull(i1#26)], Format: Parquet, Location: InMemoryFileIndex[..., PartitionFilters: [], PushedFilters: [IsNotNull(i1)], ReadSchema: struct<i1:int,j1:int>, SelectedBucketsCount: 4 out of 4
+- *(3) Sort [i2#30 ASC NULLS FIRST, j2#31 ASC NULLS FIRST], false, 0
   +- *(3) Project [i2#30, j2#31]
      +- *(3) Filter (((j2#31 = i2#30) AND isnotnull(j2#31)) AND isnotnull(i2#30))
         +- *(3) ColumnarToRow
            +- FileScan parquet default.t2[i2#30,j2#31] Batched: true, DataFilters: [(j2#31 = i2#30), isnotnull(j2#31), isnotnull(i2#30)], Format: Parquet, Location: InMemoryFileIndex[..., PartitionFilters: [], PushedFilters: [IsNotNull(j2), IsNotNull(i2)], ReadSchema: struct<i2:int,j2:int>, SelectedBucketsCount: 4 out of 4
```
2. Scenario 2):
```
== Physical Plan ==
*(8) SortMergeJoin [i1#7, j1#8], [i3#29, j3#30], Inner
:- *(5) SortMergeJoin [i1#7, j1#8], [i2#18, j2#19], Inner
:  :- *(2) Sort [i1#7 ASC NULLS FIRST, j1#8 ASC NULLS FIRST], false, 0
:  :  +- Exchange hashpartitioning(i1#7, j1#8, 5), true, [id=#43]
:  :     +- *(1) Project [_1#2 AS i1#7, _2#3 AS j1#8]
:  :        +- *(1) LocalTableScan [_1#2, _2#3]
:  +- *(4) Sort [i2#18 ASC NULLS FIRST, j2#19 ASC NULLS FIRST], false, 0
:     +- Exchange hashpartitioning(i2#18, j2#19, 5), true, [id=#49]
:        +- *(3) Project [_1#13 AS i2#18, _2#14 AS j2#19]
:           +- *(3) LocalTableScan [_1#13, _2#14]
+- *(7) Sort [i3#29 ASC NULLS FIRST, j3#30 ASC NULLS FIRST], false, 0
   +- Exchange hashpartitioning(i3#29, j3#30, 5), true, [id=#58]
      +- *(6) Project [_1#24 AS i3#29, _2#25 AS j3#30]
         +- *(6) LocalTableScan [_1#24, _2#25]
```

### How was this patch tested?

Added tests.

Closes apache#29074 from imback82/reorder_keys.

Authored-by: Terry Kim <yuminkim@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com>
16pierre pushed a commit to 16pierre/spark that referenced this pull request May 24, 2021
Update README.md (palantir#51)
03c89df
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@ash211 ash211 ash211 left review comments

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@sjrand @ash211