[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-29035?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16930297#comment-16930297
]
Jose Silva commented on SPARK-29035:
------------------------------------
[~hyukjin.kwon]
What do you mean with "full reproducer"?
> unpersist() ignoring cache/persist()
> ------------------------------------
>
> Key: SPARK-29035
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-29035
> Project: Spark
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: SQL
> Affects Versions: 2.4.3
> Environment: Amazon EMR - Spark 2.4.3
> Reporter: Jose Silva
> Priority: Major
> Original Estimate: 2h
> Remaining Estimate: 2h
>
> Calling {{unpersist()}}, even though the {{DataFrame}} is not used anymore
> removes all the InMemoryTableScan from the DAG.
> Here's a simplified version of the code i'm using:
> {code}
> df = spark.read(...).where(...).cache()
> df_a = union(df.select(...), df.select(...), df.select(...))
> df_b = df.select(...)
> df_c = df.select(...)
> df_d = df.select(...)
> df.unpersist()
> join(df_a, df_b, df_c, df_d).write()
> {code}
> I've created an [album |https://imgur.com/a/c1xGq0r]with the two DAGs, with
> and without the {{unpersist()}} call.
> I call unpersist in order to prevent OOM during the join. From what I
> understand even though all the DataFrames come from df, unpersisting df after
> doing the selects shouldn't ignore the cache call, right?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.2#803003)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@spark.apache.org
