On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Alexei Scherbakov < alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dmitriy, > > This still can make sense for some scenarios, because we could limit number > of initial map requests reducing overall query overhead. > > Are you still sure we need to throw an exception ? > The outcome and the resulting behavior needs to be absolutely clear to our users. If we can't provide any sort of guarantee here, I would disallow it altogether. > > 2017-01-23 1:49 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>: > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 5:06 AM, Alexei Scherbakov < > > alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Yes, it will be possible because distributed joins are executed using > > > broadcast queries. > > > > > > > > In this case why even bother supporting non-collocated joins? We need to > > throw an exception in this case. > > > > 2017-01-22 15:49 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 4:46 AM, Alexei Scherbakov < > > > > alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > > > ScanQueries currently support only one partition. I will extend it > to > > > > > support multiple partitions. > > > > > > > > > > For distributed joins partitions will only be applied on "map" > query > > > > step. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Will it still be possible to get data from the partitions that were > not > > > > specified? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Alexei Scherbakov > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > Alexei Scherbakov >
