hive-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "liyunzhang_intel (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Updated] (HIVE-16600) Refactor SetSparkReducerParallelism#needSetParallelism to enable parallel order by in multi_insert cases
Date Wed, 24 May 2017 06:37:11 GMT

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-16600?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]

liyunzhang_intel updated HIVE-16600:
------------------------------------
    Attachment: HIVE-16600.8.patch

[~lirui] and [~xuefuz]:
 thanks for your suggestion about multi-insert.  I update the code of judge multiInsert case
like following in HIVE-16600.8.patch. In HIVE-16600.8.patch,  if there are more than 1 path
from current RS to FS in the operator tree, it is considered as a multi-insert case. Do you
think it is ok?
{code}
 // the multi insert case is like
  // TS[0]-SEL[1]-RS[2]-SEL[3]-SEL[4]-FS[5]
  //                          -SEL[6]-LIM[7]-RS[8]-SEL[9]-LIM[10]-FS[11]
  // verify Multi Insert case: if there are more than 1 path from RS(RS[2]) to FS in the operator
tree, it is a multi-insert
  // case
  private boolean isMultiInsert(ReduceSinkOperator rs) {
    int pathToFSNum = 0;
    Deque<Operator<?>> childQueue = new LinkedList<>();
    childQueue.addAll(rs.getChildOperators());
    while (!childQueue.isEmpty()) {
      Operator<?> child = childQueue.pop();
      if (child instanceof FileSinkOperator) {
        pathToFSNum = pathToFSNum + 1;
      } else {
        childQueue.addAll(child.getChildOperators());
      }
    }
    boolean isMultiInsert = pathToFSNum > 1 ? true : false;
    LOG.debug("reducesink:" + rs + " isMultiInsert:" + isMultiInsert);
    return isMultiInsert;
  }
{code}

> Refactor SetSparkReducerParallelism#needSetParallelism to enable parallel order by in
multi_insert cases
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HIVE-16600
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-16600
>             Project: Hive
>          Issue Type: Sub-task
>            Reporter: liyunzhang_intel
>            Assignee: liyunzhang_intel
>         Attachments: HIVE-16600.1.patch, HIVE-16600.2.patch, HIVE-16600.3.patch, HIVE-16600.4.patch,
HIVE-16600.5.patch, HIVE-16600.6.patch, HIVE-16600.7.patch, HIVE-16600.8.patch, mr.explain,
mr.explain.log.HIVE-16600
>
>
> multi_insert_gby.case.q
> {code}
> set hive.exec.reducers.bytes.per.reducer=256;
> set hive.optimize.sampling.orderby=true;
> drop table if exists e1;
> drop table if exists e2;
> create table e1 (key string, value string);
> create table e2 (key string);
> FROM (select key, cast(key as double) as keyD, value from src order by key) a
> INSERT OVERWRITE TABLE e1
>     SELECT key, value
> INSERT OVERWRITE TABLE e2
>     SELECT key;
> select * from e1;
> select * from e2;
> {code} 
> the parallelism of Sort is 1 even we enable parallel order by("hive.optimize.sampling.orderby"
is set as "true").  This is not reasonable because the parallelism  should be calcuated by
 [Utilities.estimateReducers|https://github.com/apache/hive/blob/master/ql/src/java/org/apache/hadoop/hive/ql/optimizer/spark/SetSparkReducerParallelism.java#L170]
> this is because SetSparkReducerParallelism#needSetParallelism returns false when [children
size of RS|https://github.com/apache/hive/blob/master/ql/src/java/org/apache/hadoop/hive/ql/optimizer/spark/SetSparkReducerParallelism.java#L207]
is greater than 1.
> in this case, the children size of {{RS[2]}} is two.
> the logical plan of the case
> {code}
>    TS[0]-SEL[1]-RS[2]-SEL[3]-SEL[4]-FS[5]
>                             -SEL[6]-FS[7]
> {code}



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)

Mime
View raw message