[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DRILL-4743?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15379781#comment-15379781
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on DRILL-4743:
---------------------------------------
Github user sudheeshkatkam commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/drill/pull/534#discussion_r71013627
--- Diff:
exec/java-exec/src/main/java/org/apache/drill/exec/server/options/TypeValidators.java
---
@@ -27,6 +27,21 @@
import static com.google.common.base.Preconditions.checkArgument;
public class TypeValidators {
+
+ /** Interface implemented by option validators which depend on other
options
+ * in order to perform validation. e.g. MIN/MAX option validators might
be
+ * dependent if MIN should always be less than MAX.
+ *
+ */
+ public interface DependentTypeValidators
+ {
+ /* Interface method requires providing an OptionManager which can
+ * be used to read option values of dependencies. As an example look at
+ * MinRangeDoubleValidator/MaxRangeDoubleValidator
+ */
+ public void validate(OptionValue v, BaseOptionManager manager);
--- End diff --
Would replacing `validate(OptionValue)` with `validate(OptionValue,
OptionManager)` in the `OptionValidator` interface work?
> HashJoin's not fully parallelized in query plan
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DRILL-4743
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DRILL-4743
> Project: Apache Drill
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 1.5.0
> Reporter: Gautam Kumar Parai
> Assignee: Gautam Kumar Parai
> Labels: doc-impacting
>
> The underlying problem is filter selectivity under-estimate for a query with
> complicated predicates e.g. deeply nested and/or predicates. This leads to
> under parallelization of the major fragment doing the join.
> To really resolve this problem we need table/column statistics to correctly
> estimate the selectivity. However, in the absence of statistics OR even when
> existing statistics are insufficient to get a correct estimate of selectivity
> this will serve as a workaround.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
