Re: Local join instead of data exchange - co-located blocks

> partitions contain all id=4 rows which should be correct for the join. But >> probably I have overlooked something in the log. >> >> The partition/block setup is as follows: >> 6 Nodes (1 Namenode, 5 Datanodes) >> Node 1: >> Node 2: 0|0 5|5 >> Node 3: 1|1

Re: Local join instead of data exchange - co-located blocks

bout missing shared libraries > after the replacement: > libExec.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory > I already added like 5 other shared libaries to the same folder. But > before I continue, I wanted to make sure if this is the correct path. > > Build command

Re: Does Impala DDL and SET operations consume resources

As far as I know the driver should not generate additional statements. Can you share what software you're using to connect to Impala through the driver? I suspect that that software generated these queries, possibly to do some schema discovery. Cheers, Lars On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:14 PM Jim

Re: Local join instead of data exchange - co-located blocks

n't be at least one partition per > node be listed? Could you also clearify the difference between > ScanRangeAssignments (where in my opinion everything looks correct) and > per_node_scan_ranges to me? What I don't really get is why the build is > empty although the correct partitions are

Re: Local join instead of data exchange - co-located blocks

-> partitioned by id -> all > blocks are on node 2. > t1 > 1 (...769.parq) > 0 (...105.parq) > 0 (...316.parq) > > t2 > 1 (...079.parq) > 0 (...538.parq) > > Thank you so much! > Philipp > > Am 18.06.2018 um 18:51 schrieb Lars Volker: &

Re: Breaking change for query hints?

We changed query hints from being interpreted as strings to being parsed properly in commit ce9b332e for IMPALA-4163 .

Re: Breaking change for query hints?

+ sb.append(name_); > >sb.append("("); > >sb.append(Joiner.on(",").join(args_)); > >sb.append(")"); > > > > Quanlong Huang 于2018年8月24日周五 下午12:09写道： > >> Unfortunately, the queries come from a system that we do

Re: JSON support: Hive compatibility or ANSI SQL standard

Thanks for the comprehensive summary, Quanlong. I'm in favor of (c) but I don't feel strongly about the order in which we should prioritize them. Being compatible to Hive and following the SQL standard will help users to switch more easily between systems. I'm not worried about the confusing

Re: Adding impala daemons on servers without local HDFS storage

You can find documentation on the -default_query_options flag here: https://impala.apache.org/docs/build/html/topics/impala_config_options.html Keep in mind that setting replica_preference to REMOTE will make Impala ignore any locality when deciding where to schedule a read. Even within the group

Re: Impala on ppc64le.

In short the answer is "likely not". We don't have any tests for ppc64le. About two years ago we had some commits to enable the toolchain on power, but I can't recall or find any changes to Impala itself related to that effort. Cheers, Lars On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 11:53 AM Koltsov Dmitriy