forked from apache/spark
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 51
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.
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
SPARK-18113 Authorize duplicate requests to commit #79
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Commonly encountered because of dropped responses from the driver back to an executor authorizing a commit.
👍 looks fine/sane. Not sure how to test but that's probably ok? |
ash211
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 16, 2017
mccheah
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 27, 2017
mattsills
pushed a commit
to mattsills/spark
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 17, 2020
…utChecker thread properly upon shutdown ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This PR port https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-14817 for spark thrift server. ### Why are the changes needed? When stopping the HiveServer2, the non-daemon thread stops the server from terminating ```sql "HiveServer2-Background-Pool: Thread-79" palantir#79 prio=5 os_prio=31 tid=0x00007fde26138800 nid=0x13713 waiting on condition [0x0000700010c32000] java.lang.Thread.State: TIMED_WAITING (sleeping) at java.lang.Thread.sleep(Native Method) at org.apache.hive.service.cli.session.SessionManager$1.sleepInterval(SessionManager.java:178) at org.apache.hive.service.cli.session.SessionManager$1.run(SessionManager.java:156) at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1149) at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:624) at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:748) ``` Here is an example to reproduce: https://github.com/yaooqinn/kyuubi/blob/master/kyuubi-spark-sql-engine/src/main/scala/org/apache/kyuubi/spark/SparkSQLEngineApp.scala Also, it causes issues as HIVE-14817 described which ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? NO ### How was this patch tested? Passing Jenkins Closes apache#28870 from yaooqinn/SPARK-32034. Authored-by: Kent Yao <yaooqinn@hotmail.com> Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dongjoon@apache.org> (cherry picked from commit 9f8e15b) Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dongjoon@apache.org>
rahij
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 21, 2020
… 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>
laflechejonathan
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 27, 2021
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Derived from suggestion at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-18113?focusedCommentId=15608015&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-15608015
How was this patch tested?
Currently untested