About maurin

DanielDuan · ‎11-14-2018

Hi, I have the same problem, could you please give me some detail guid? Thanks a lot

alex.behm · ‎04-21-2017

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IMPALA-5243

sanjeev20 · ‎03-22-2017

@DWinters How were you able to overcome this issue? Could you please post a sample solution

alex.behm · ‎11-02-2016

Hi Maurin, both tables have to be scanned to observe SQL semantics. Otherwise, we would be changing the number of results coming out of your view. If you want the drop the second union operand, you could add a "WHERE a IS NOT NULL", and then the seocnd table will not be scanned. Alex

Tim Armstrong · ‎09-27-2016

Thanks for the data point :). We're tracking the parallelisation work here: https://issues.cloudera.org/browse/IMPALA-3902 . It's probably going to get enabled in phases - we may have parallelisation for aggregations before joins for example.

alex.behm · ‎09-20-2016

Thanks for reporting this issue! Sorry for the trouble. I was able to reproduce the issue and can confirm this is a regression from previous Impala versions. I filed https://issues.cloudera.org/browse/IMPALA-4170 to track progress on the issue.

Online	Offline
Last Visited	‎04-09-2020 08:10 PM

Member Since	‎04-07-2016 03:40 PM
Last Visited	‎04-09-2020 08:10 PM
Posts	36
Kudos received	4

Cloudera Community

Re: add columns to hive/parquet table

Re: impala-shell -k with ha proxy not working

Re: CodeGen way to slow

Re: add columns to hive/parquet table

Re: performance for views with union of different ...

Re: AGGREGATE of query is to long

Re: compute incremental stats fail for new partiti...