simhadri-g commented on code in PR #5803:
URL: https://github.com/apache/hive/pull/5803#discussion_r2102197874
##########
ql/src/test/results/clientpositive/llap/explainanalyze_acid_with_direct_insert.q.out:
##########
@@ -47,21 +47,21 @@ STAGE PLANS:
TableScan
alias: _dummy_table
Row Limit Per Split: 1
- Statistics: Num rows: 1/1 Data size: 10 Basic stats:
COMPLETE Column stats: COMPLETE
+ Statistics: Num rows: 1/1 Data size: ###Masked### Basic
stats: COMPLETE Column stats: COMPLETE
Select Operator
expressions: array(const struct(1),const struct(2),const
struct(3),const struct(4)) (type: array<struct<col1:int>>)
outputColumnNames: _col0
- Statistics: Num rows: 1/1 Data size: 72 Basic stats:
COMPLETE Column stats: COMPLETE
+ Statistics: Num rows: 1/1 Data size: ###Masked### Basic
stats: COMPLETE Column stats: COMPLETE
Review Comment:
I too think its better to correct the data size.
* We can infer quite a bit of info from the actual value and catch issues
more easily(such as, if predicate push down is resulting in less data being
read?)
* Commit history will also be preserved which will allow us to track which
commit modified the data size (Like the orc upgrade mentioned in previous
comment by okumin)
Sorry , if i am missing some context as to why we are masking the data size
in this PR. It is expected that new optimizations in dependent projects (like
orc,parquet etc) will change data size right? That is capture by the this
value.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: gitbox-unsubscr...@hive.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: gitbox-unsubscr...@hive.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: gitbox-h...@hive.apache.org
