[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-16600?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
liyunzhang_intel updated HIVE-16600:
------------------------------------
Attachment: HIVE-16600.8.patch
[~lirui] and [~xuefuz]:
thanks for your suggestion about multi-insert. I update the code of judge
multiInsert case like following in HIVE-16600.8.patch. In HIVE-16600.8.patch,
if there are more than 1 path from current RS to FS in the operator tree, it is
considered as a multi-insert case. Do you think it is ok?
{code}
// the multi insert case is like
// TS[0]-SEL[1]-RS[2]-SEL[3]-SEL[4]-FS[5]
// -SEL[6]-LIM[7]-RS[8]-SEL[9]-LIM[10]-FS[11]
// verify Multi Insert case: if there are more than 1 path from RS(RS[2]) to
FS in the operator tree, it is a multi-insert
// case
private boolean isMultiInsert(ReduceSinkOperator rs) {
int pathToFSNum = 0;
Deque<Operator<?>> childQueue = new LinkedList<>();
childQueue.addAll(rs.getChildOperators());
while (!childQueue.isEmpty()) {
Operator<?> child = childQueue.pop();
if (child instanceof FileSinkOperator) {
pathToFSNum = pathToFSNum + 1;
} else {
childQueue.addAll(child.getChildOperators());
}
}
boolean isMultiInsert = pathToFSNum > 1 ? true : false;
LOG.debug("reducesink:" + rs + " isMultiInsert:" + isMultiInsert);
return isMultiInsert;
}
{code}
> Refactor SetSparkReducerParallelism#needSetParallelism to enable parallel
> order by in multi_insert cases
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HIVE-16600
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-16600
> Project: Hive
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Reporter: liyunzhang_intel
> Assignee: liyunzhang_intel
> Attachments: HIVE-16600.1.patch, HIVE-16600.2.patch,
> HIVE-16600.3.patch, HIVE-16600.4.patch, HIVE-16600.5.patch,
> HIVE-16600.6.patch, HIVE-16600.7.patch, HIVE-16600.8.patch, mr.explain,
> mr.explain.log.HIVE-16600
>
>
> multi_insert_gby.case.q
> {code}
> set hive.exec.reducers.bytes.per.reducer=256;
> set hive.optimize.sampling.orderby=true;
> drop table if exists e1;
> drop table if exists e2;
> create table e1 (key string, value string);
> create table e2 (key string);
> FROM (select key, cast(key as double) as keyD, value from src order by key) a
> INSERT OVERWRITE TABLE e1
> SELECT key, value
> INSERT OVERWRITE TABLE e2
> SELECT key;
> select * from e1;
> select * from e2;
> {code}
> the parallelism of Sort is 1 even we enable parallel order
> by("hive.optimize.sampling.orderby" is set as "true"). This is not
> reasonable because the parallelism should be calcuated by
> [Utilities.estimateReducers|https://github.com/apache/hive/blob/master/ql/src/java/org/apache/hadoop/hive/ql/optimizer/spark/SetSparkReducerParallelism.java#L170]
> this is because SetSparkReducerParallelism#needSetParallelism returns false
> when [children size of
> RS|https://github.com/apache/hive/blob/master/ql/src/java/org/apache/hadoop/hive/ql/optimizer/spark/SetSparkReducerParallelism.java#L207]
> is greater than 1.
> in this case, the children size of {{RS[2]}} is two.
> the logical plan of the case
> {code}
> TS[0]-SEL[1]-RS[2]-SEL[3]-SEL[4]-FS[5]
> -SEL[6]-FS[7]
> {code}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
