Maximum repeatedly substituted alias size #475
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
@j-esse will approve, but can you add this to FORK.md as well? |
|
@vinooganesh done! |
vinooganesh
approved these changes
Jan 30, 2019
|
For future - please follow same PR title as upstream |
|
@robert3005 ah sorry! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-26626
apache#23556
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
This adds a
spark.sql.maxRepeatedAliasSizeconfig option, which specifies the maximum size of an aliased expression to be substituted (in CollapseProject and PhysicalOperation). This prevents large aliased expressions from being substituted multiple times and exploding the size of the expression tree, eventually OOMing the driver.The default config value of 100 was chosen through testing to find the optimally performant value:
How was this patch tested?
Added unit tests, and did manual testing