Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28032200CBD for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 03:16:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 268CE160BF0; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 01:16:48 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 67B0A160BD5 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 03:16:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 82758 invoked by uid 500); 22 Jun 2017 01:16:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@spark.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@spark.apache.org Received: (qmail 82747 invoked by uid 99); 22 Jun 2017 01:16:44 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd4-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 01:16:44 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd4-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd4-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 577A4C00A9 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 01:16:44 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd4-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.501 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.501 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY=1, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-eu.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd4-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.11]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xg7bLrrF2wK5 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 01:16:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from alu112.rev.netart.pl (alu112.rev.netart.pl [85.128.177.112]) by mx1-lw-eu.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-eu.apache.org) with ESMTP id 33FCC5F6BE for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 01:16:42 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV (20) Received: from mail-pg0-f50.google.com (mail-pg0-f50.google.com [74.125.83.50]) by laskowski.nazwa.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80FBA1AA41B for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 03:16:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-pg0-f50.google.com with SMTP id f127so1142743pgc.0 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:16:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOxFqW/dwfzXyEFjvgR7n56uObtkb0iT6RmR/H/XQos/8/XQsbce DVkaN8DIDKst/1pqTUxEWVtalny9VA== X-Received: by 10.101.72.207 with SMTP id o15mr15547pgs.133.1498094199952; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:16:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.166.130 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:16:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Jacek Laskowski Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 20:16:39 -0500 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Why does Spark SQL use custom spark.sql.execution.id local property not SparkContext.setJobGroup? To: dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" archived-at: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 01:16:48 -0000 Hi, Just noticed that Spark SQL uses spark.sql.execution.id local property (via SQLExecution.withNewExecutionId [1]) to group Spark jobs logically together while Structured Streaming uses SparkContext.setJobGroup [2] to do the same. I think Structured Streaming is more correct as it uses what Spark Core introduced and uses in web UI (without introducing a custom solution). Why does Spark SQL introduce a custom solution based on spark.sql.execution.id local property? What's wrong with SparkContext.setJobGroup? [1] https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/sql/core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/execution/SQLExecution.scala#L63 [2] https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/sql/core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/execution/streaming/StreamExecution.scala#L265 Pozdrawiam, Jacek Laskowski ---- https://medium.com/@jaceklaskowski/ Mastering Apache Spark 2 https://bit.ly/mastering-apache-spark Follow me at https://twitter.com/jaceklaskowski --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@spark.apache.org