Hi,there: Thank you for your reply.The Oraoop connector is excellent. I tried what you debet.MySQL's limit will scan the full table,but if I use order by before limit it will just scan (limit+offset) length recored.
顺祝商祺 --------------------------------------------- 李占强 浪潮（北京）电子信息产业有限公司 系统软件部 地址：浪潮路1036号浪潮科技园S05楼北楼2层 手机：15315572926 From: David Robson Date: 2014-09-10 11:33 To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Re: the confusion of --split-by parameter In regards to Oracle – with the addition of the direct connector you can split by ROWID, or by partition. This is much faster than using min/max boundaries. I do not know the internals of MySQL – but limit/offset queries would most likely need to sort the data to implement this – so would potentially have an additional overhead. What database are you using? I guess the current splitting by the minimum and maximum value of the column could be considered the generic way of doing it – then each database should implement a custom method. So we wrote the direct connector for Oracle to take advantage of Oracles features and make it better. So if someone could work out a better way of doing it for say MySQL or PostgreSQL then they could enhance the connector for that particular database. I know there is connectors for various databases – but I can’t comment on whether it could be done more efficiently as I have only focused on the Oracle connector. You could try enhancing a connector on a database you are looking at and submit it as a patch if you find a more efficient method. If you are using Oracle – you should try the direct connector in 1.4.5 (formerly known as OraOop) as this doesn’t require a split by column. From: Abraham Elmahrek [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, 10 September 2014 12:00 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Re: the confusion of --split-by parameter Good point. The only thing I can think of is that offsets might be slower (since the DB has to scan and keep a count internally) and the expectation that certain ranges of data end up in certain files (though I doubt this one). I'll defer this one to the broader community as I'm not sure myself. On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 5:31 PM, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: Hey,brother. Glad to hear from you!I think we can use limit/offset(if the database support this operation),or we can use sub-selection(if the database does not support limint/offset) For example: For MySQL:select * from table limiit 0,5;select * from table limit 6,10... For Oracle we can use rownum I just can not understand why sqoop override this opreation above.This override can lead to data skew. From: Abraham Elmahrek Date: 2014-09-10 00:38 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: the confusion of --split-by parameter Hey there, For databases, there needs to be a way to actually infer boundaries for a particular column. Simply performing a "select *" would not be enough because we would not know how to query the database. -Abe On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 8:33 PM, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: Hi,all. In sqoop we can specify the parameter --split-by,which can determine which field we will use to split map recored. But if the split field's data is skew.The workload between maps will be imbalance.I want to know why sqoop does not use select count(*) from table/num-maps to determine each map's workload.As I know some other base class of DataDrivenDBInputFormat's has the implementation of select count(*) from table/num-maps.Then why sqoop override this.
