[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-16151?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15902743#comment-15902743
]
Hive QA commented on HIVE-16151:
--------------------------------
Here are the results of testing the latest attachment:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12856910/HIVE-16151.patch
{color:red}ERROR:{color} -1 due to no test(s) being added or modified.
{color:green}SUCCESS:{color} +1 due to 10335 tests passed
Test results: https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HIVE-Build/4042/testReport
Console output: https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HIVE-Build/4042/console
Test logs: http://104.198.109.242/logs/PreCommit-HIVE-Build-4042/
Messages:
{noformat}
Executing org.apache.hive.ptest.execution.TestCheckPhase
Executing org.apache.hive.ptest.execution.PrepPhase
Executing org.apache.hive.ptest.execution.ExecutionPhase
Executing org.apache.hive.ptest.execution.ReportingPhase
{noformat}
This message is automatically generated.
ATTACHMENT ID: 12856910 - PreCommit-HIVE-Build
> BytesBytesHashTable allocates large arrays
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HIVE-16151
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-16151
> Project: Hive
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Prasanth Jayachandran
> Assignee: Sergey Shelukhin
> Attachments: HIVE-16151.patch
>
>
> These arrays cause GC pressure and also impose key count limitations on the
> table. Wrt the latter, we won't be able to get rid of it without a 64-bit
> hash function, but for now we can get rid of the former. If we need the
> latter we'd add murmur64 and probably account for it differently for resize
> (we don't want to blow up the hashtable by 4 bytes/key in the common case
> where #of keys is less than ~1.5B :))
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
