-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/26661/#review56487
-----------------------------------------------------------



ql/src/java/org/apache/hadoop/hive/ql/exec/spark/HiveKVResultCache.java
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/26661/#comment96841>

    I think it makes sense to make the class fully thread safe, for the sake of 
clarity and confidence. If there is no concurrent read, synchronization cost 
can be ignored.



ql/src/java/org/apache/hadoop/hive/ql/exec/spark/HiveKVResultCache.java
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/26661/#comment96842>

    Yeah. Let's make this thread safe for read also. Otherwise, it's error 
prone and hard to understand.
    
    We also need to make clear() thread safe, probably.


- Xuefu Zhang


On Oct. 13, 2014, 9:33 p.m., Jimmy Xiang wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/26661/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Oct. 13, 2014, 9:33 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for hive and Xuefu Zhang.
> 
> 
> Bugs: HIVE-7873
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-7873
> 
> 
> Repository: hive-git
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Re-enabled lazy HiveBaseFunctionResultList. A separate RowContainer is used 
> to work around the no-write-after-read limitation of RowContainer. The patch 
> also fixed a concurrency issue in HiveKVResultCache. Synchronized is used 
> instead of reentrant lock since I assume there won't be many threads to 
> access the cache.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   
> ql/src/java/org/apache/hadoop/hive/ql/exec/spark/HiveBaseFunctionResultList.java
>  0df2580 
>   ql/src/java/org/apache/hadoop/hive/ql/exec/spark/HiveKVResultCache.java 
> a6b9037 
>   ql/src/test/org/apache/hadoop/hive/ql/exec/spark/TestHiveKVResultCache.java 
> 496a11f 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/26661/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Unit test, some simple perf test.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jimmy Xiang
> 
>

Reply via email to