Re: SORT_MERGE_JOIN on non-leading key: server-side sorting

[Maryann Xue]

Hi Gerald,

I checked again. Unfortunately this fix is included with 4.13.2 but not
4.13.1. Would you mind upgrading your library to 4.13.2?

Thanks,
Maryann

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Maryann Xue  wrote:

> Sorry for the late response. Yes, sure, I will try it right away.
>
> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 9:40 AM Gerald Sangudi 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Maryann,
>>
>> Following up again -- I ran EXPLAIN on 4.13.1 and saw the same behavior,
>> a sort on the RHS. Is it possible for you to try it on 4.13.1?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Gerald
>>
>> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM, Gerald Sangudi 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Maryann,
>>>
>>> Thanks for verifying against latest. However, I did not detect the fix
>>> in Phoenix 4.13.1. AWS EMR currently provides Phoenix 4.13.0. I manually
>>> upgraded an AWS EMR cluster to Phoenix 4.13.1 and rebooted the cluster. The
>>> EXPLAIN plan still shows the same issue.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Gerald
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 11:51 AM, Maryann Xue 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hi Gerald,

 I have verified against latest Phoenix code that this problem has been
 fixed. I have also checked Phoenix 4.13 release tags. Looks like all
 versions of 4.13 packages now include that fix. Would you mind getting the
 latest Phoenix-4.13 package and testing it again? Thank you!


 Thanks,
 Maryann

 On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 12:24 PM, Gerald Sangudi 
 wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I'm running Phoenix 4.13 on AWS EMR and getting the following EXPLAIN
> plan:
>
> Table:
>
> *CREATE TABLE salted (   keyA BIGINT NOT NULL,   keyB BIGINT
> NOT NULL,   val SMALLINT,   CONSTRAINT pk PRIMARY KEY (keyA,
> keyB))SALT_BUCKETS = 64;*
> EXPLAIN:
>
> *EXPLAINSELECT /*+ USE_SORT_MERGE_JOIN */COUNT(*) cFROM salted t1 JOIN
> salted t2ON (t1.keyB = t2.keyB)WHERE t1.keyA = 10AND t2.keyA = 20;*
>
> *+--+-+-+|
> PLAN   | EST_BYTES_READ |
> |+--+-+-+|
> SORT-MERGE-JOIN (INNER) TABLES
>   | null | || CLIENT
> 64-CHUNK PARALLEL 64-WAY RANGE SCAN OVER SALTED [0,10] - [63,10]  | null |
> || SERVER FILTER BY FIRST KEY ONLY
>  | null | || CLIENT MERGE SORT
>| null | || AND
> (SKIP MERGE) |
> null | || CLIENT 64-CHUNK PARALLEL 64-WAY RANGE SCAN OVER SALTED 
> [0,20]
> - [63,20]  | null | || SERVER FILTER BY FIRST KEY ONLY
>  | null | || SERVER SORTED BY
> [T2.KEYB]   | null | || CLIENT
> MERGE SORT| null |
> || CLIENT AGGREGATE INTO SINGLE ROW
> | null |
> |+--+-+-+*
>
> In the EXPLAIN output, I see "SERVER SORTED BY [T2.KEYB]". Is this
> sort necessary? For both JOIN terms T1 and T2, the value of keyA, the
> leading part of the primary key, is fixed. Furthermore, there is no
> corresponding sort of T1.KEYB.
>
> When I EXPLAIN the same query on a non-salted table, neither T1.KEYB
> nor T2.KEYB is re-sorted. I'm hoping the sort is unnecessary. If so, is
> there an open ticket? I would be happy to file a ticket and to contribute
> to a fix. I would appreciate any guidance.
>
> Thanks,
> Gerald
>
>

>>>
>>

Re: SORT_MERGE_JOIN on non-leading key: server-side sorting

[Maryann Xue]

Sorry for the late response. Yes, sure, I will try it right away.
On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 9:40 AM Gerald Sangudi  wrote:

> Hi Maryann,
>
> Following up again -- I ran EXPLAIN on 4.13.1 and saw the same behavior, a
> sort on the RHS. Is it possible for you to try it on 4.13.1?
>
> Thanks,
> Gerald
>
> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM, Gerald Sangudi 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Maryann,
>>
>> Thanks for verifying against latest. However, I did not detect the fix in
>> Phoenix 4.13.1. AWS EMR currently provides Phoenix 4.13.0. I manually
>> upgraded an AWS EMR cluster to Phoenix 4.13.1 and rebooted the cluster. The
>> EXPLAIN plan still shows the same issue.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Gerald
>>
>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 11:51 AM, Maryann Xue 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Gerald,
>>>
>>> I have verified against latest Phoenix code that this problem has been
>>> fixed. I have also checked Phoenix 4.13 release tags. Looks like all
>>> versions of 4.13 packages now include that fix. Would you mind getting the
>>> latest Phoenix-4.13 package and testing it again? Thank you!
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Maryann
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 12:24 PM, Gerald Sangudi 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hello,

 I'm running Phoenix 4.13 on AWS EMR and getting the following EXPLAIN
 plan:

 Table:

 *CREATE TABLE salted (   keyA BIGINT NOT NULL,   keyB BIGINT
 NOT NULL,   val SMALLINT,   CONSTRAINT pk PRIMARY KEY (keyA,
 keyB))SALT_BUCKETS = 64;*
 EXPLAIN:

 *EXPLAINSELECT /*+ USE_SORT_MERGE_JOIN */COUNT(*) cFROM salted t1 JOIN
 salted t2ON (t1.keyB = t2.keyB)WHERE t1.keyA = 10AND t2.keyA = 20;*

 *+--+-+-+|
 PLAN   | EST_BYTES_READ |
 |+--+-+-+|
 SORT-MERGE-JOIN (INNER) TABLES
   | null | || CLIENT
 64-CHUNK PARALLEL 64-WAY RANGE SCAN OVER SALTED [0,10] - [63,10]  | null |
 || SERVER FILTER BY FIRST KEY ONLY
  | null | || CLIENT MERGE SORT
| null | || AND
 (SKIP MERGE) |
 null | || CLIENT 64-CHUNK PARALLEL 64-WAY RANGE SCAN OVER SALTED [0,20]
 - [63,20]  | null | || SERVER FILTER BY FIRST KEY ONLY
  | null | || SERVER SORTED BY
 [T2.KEYB]   | null | || CLIENT
 MERGE SORT| null |
 || CLIENT AGGREGATE INTO SINGLE ROW
 | null |
 |+--+-+-+*

 In the EXPLAIN output, I see "SERVER SORTED BY [T2.KEYB]". Is this sort
 necessary? For both JOIN terms T1 and T2, the value of keyA, the leading
 part of the primary key, is fixed. Furthermore, there is no corresponding
 sort of T1.KEYB.

 When I EXPLAIN the same query on a non-salted table, neither T1.KEYB
 nor T2.KEYB is re-sorted. I'm hoping the sort is unnecessary. If so, is
 there an open ticket? I would be happy to file a ticket and to contribute
 to a fix. I would appreciate any guidance.

 Thanks,
 Gerald


>>>
>>
>

Re: SORT_MERGE_JOIN on non-leading key: server-side sorting

[Gerald Sangudi]

Hi Maryann,

Following up again -- I ran EXPLAIN on 4.13.1 and saw the same behavior, a
sort on the RHS. Is it possible for you to try it on 4.13.1?

Thanks,
Gerald

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM, Gerald Sangudi 
wrote:

> Hi Maryann,
>
> Thanks for verifying against latest. However, I did not detect the fix in
> Phoenix 4.13.1. AWS EMR currently provides Phoenix 4.13.0. I manually
> upgraded an AWS EMR cluster to Phoenix 4.13.1 and rebooted the cluster. The
> EXPLAIN plan still shows the same issue.
>
> Thanks,
> Gerald
>
> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 11:51 AM, Maryann Xue 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Gerald,
>>
>> I have verified against latest Phoenix code that this problem has been
>> fixed. I have also checked Phoenix 4.13 release tags. Looks like all
>> versions of 4.13 packages now include that fix. Would you mind getting the
>> latest Phoenix-4.13 package and testing it again? Thank you!
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Maryann
>>
>> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 12:24 PM, Gerald Sangudi 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I'm running Phoenix 4.13 on AWS EMR and getting the following EXPLAIN
>>> plan:
>>>
>>> Table:
>>>
>>> *CREATE TABLE salted (   keyA BIGINT NOT NULL,   keyB BIGINT NOT
>>> NULL,   val SMALLINT,   CONSTRAINT pk PRIMARY KEY (keyA,
>>> keyB))SALT_BUCKETS = 64;*
>>> EXPLAIN:
>>>
>>> *EXPLAINSELECT /*+ USE_SORT_MERGE_JOIN */COUNT(*) cFROM salted t1 JOIN
>>> salted t2ON (t1.keyB = t2.keyB)WHERE t1.keyA = 10AND t2.keyA = 20;*
>>>
>>> *+--+-+-+|
>>> PLAN   | EST_BYTES_READ |
>>> |+--+-+-+|
>>> SORT-MERGE-JOIN (INNER) TABLES
>>>   | null | || CLIENT
>>> 64-CHUNK PARALLEL 64-WAY RANGE SCAN OVER SALTED [0,10] - [63,10]  | null |
>>> || SERVER FILTER BY FIRST KEY ONLY
>>>  | null | || CLIENT MERGE SORT
>>>| null | || AND
>>> (SKIP MERGE) |
>>> null | || CLIENT 64-CHUNK PARALLEL 64-WAY RANGE SCAN OVER SALTED [0,20]
>>> - [63,20]  | null | || SERVER FILTER BY FIRST KEY ONLY
>>>  | null | || SERVER SORTED BY
>>> [T2.KEYB]   | null | || CLIENT
>>> MERGE SORT| null |
>>> || CLIENT AGGREGATE INTO SINGLE ROW
>>> | null |
>>> |+--+-+-+*
>>>
>>> In the EXPLAIN output, I see "SERVER SORTED BY [T2.KEYB]". Is this sort
>>> necessary? For both JOIN terms T1 and T2, the value of keyA, the leading
>>> part of the primary key, is fixed. Furthermore, there is no corresponding
>>> sort of T1.KEYB.
>>>
>>> When I EXPLAIN the same query on a non-salted table, neither T1.KEYB nor
>>> T2.KEYB is re-sorted. I'm hoping the sort is unnecessary. If so, is there
>>> an open ticket? I would be happy to file a ticket and to contribute to a
>>> fix. I would appreciate any guidance.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Gerald
>>>
>>>
>>
>