Its hard to comment on performance without seeing query plans. I'd suggest posting the result of an explain.
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Warren Kim <w...@diablo-technologies.com> wrote: > Playing with TPC-H and comparing performance between cached (serialized > in-memory tables) and uncached (DF from parquet) results in various > SQL queries performing much worse, duration-wise. > > > I see some physical plans have an extra layer of shuffle/sort/merge under > cached scenario. > > > I could do some filtering by key to optimize, but I'm just curious as to > why out-of-the-box planning is more complex and slower when tables are > cached to mem. > > > Thanks! >
