Thanks Cheng Lian.
I found in 1.5, if I use spark to create this table with partition
discovery, the partition pruning can be performed, but for my old table
definition in pure Hive, the execution plan will do a parquet scan across
all partitions, and it runs very slow.
Looks like the execution plan optimization is different.

2015-11-03 23:10 GMT+08:00 Cheng Lian <lian.cs....@gmail.com>:

> SPARK-11153 should be irrelevant because you are filtering on a partition
> key while SPARK-11153 is about Parquet filter push-down and doesn't affect
> partition pruning.
>
> Cheng
>
>
> On 11/3/15 7:14 PM, Rex Xiong wrote:
>
> We found the query performance is very poor due to this issue
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/plugins/servlet/mobile#issue/SPARK-11153
> We usually use filter on partition key, the date, it's in string type in
> 1.3.1 and works great.
> But in 1.5, it needs to do parquet scan for all partitions.
> 2015年10月31日 下午7:38,"Rex Xiong" < <bycha...@gmail.com>bycha...@gmail.com>
> 写道:
>
>> Add back this thread to email list, forgot to reply all.
>> 2015年10月31日 下午7:23,"Michael Armbrust" <mich...@databricks.com> 写道:
>>
>>> Not that I know of.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Rex Xiong < <bycha...@gmail.com>
>>> bycha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Good to know that, will have a try.
>>>> So there is no easy way to achieve it in pure hive method?
>>>> 2015年10月31日 下午7:17,"Michael Armbrust" < <mich...@databricks.com>
>>>> mich...@databricks.com> 写道:
>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, this was rewritten to be faster in Spark 1.5.  We use it with
>>>>> 10,000s of partitions.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Rex Xiong < <bycha...@gmail.com>
>>>>> bycha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 1.3.1
>>>>>> It is a lot of improvement in 1.5+?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2015-10-30 19:23 GMT+08:00 Michael Armbrust <
>>>>>> <mich...@databricks.com>mich...@databricks.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We have tried schema merging feature, but it's too slow, there're
>>>>>>>> hundreds of partitions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which version of Spark?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>

Reply via email to