I think ³it should overwrite the entire table² makes more sense. One can reasonably expect that ³insert overwrite table t partition (pk) select 1 as val, key from src where key > 20;² should actually be written as
³insert overwrite table t select 1 as val, key from src where key > 20;² and for Hive to know partition columns. With this syntax the ³overwrite the entire table² is more intuitive. On 10/17/16, 7:29 PM, "Sushanth Sowmyan" <khorg...@gmail.com> wrote: >I expect the following because it follows per-ptn if-write-then-overwrite >semantics: > >0,10 >1,25 >1,50 > >There can be a case to be made that it should overwrite the entire table, >and that would make sense too(probably more sense than this one), but not >one I'd think we should switch behavior to(backward compatibility). > >On Oct 17, 2016 18:10, "Sergey Shelukhin" <ser...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > >> What do you think this SHOULD do? >> >> > select key from src; >> 10 >> 25 >> 50 >> >> > create table t(val int) partitioned by (pk int); >> > insert overwrite table t partition (pk) >> select 0 as val, key from src where key < 30; >> > insert overwrite table t partition (pk) >> select 1 as val, key from src where key > 20; >> >> >> > select val, pk from t; >> ? >> >>
