Skip to content

Set larger limit get_partitions_by_filter in HiveMetastoreHook#21504

Merged
potiuk merged 1 commit into
apache:mainfrom
pingzh:pingzh-get_partitions_by_filter
Feb 11, 2022
Merged

Set larger limit get_partitions_by_filter in HiveMetastoreHook#21504
potiuk merged 1 commit into
apache:mainfrom
pingzh:pingzh-get_partitions_by_filter

Conversation

@pingzh

@pingzh pingzh commented Feb 10, 2022

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

With the large size of the hive metastore, setting limit to 1 will create a scan query that is too heavy to handle. Setting the limit to HiveMetastoreHook.MAX_PART_COUNT will generate a query using index and scan much less rows( not guaranteed, depending on the table, some table may still got a scan query but we are limited by thrift lib as the limit is a short int).


^ Add meaningful description above

Read the Pull Request Guidelines for more information.
In case of fundamental code change, Airflow Improvement Proposal (AIP) is needed.
In case of a new dependency, check compliance with the ASF 3rd Party License Policy.
In case of backwards incompatible changes please leave a note in UPDATING.md.

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

The PR is likely OK to be merged with just subset of tests for default Python and Database versions without running the full matrix of tests, because it does not modify the core of Airflow. If the committers decide that the full tests matrix is needed, they will add the label 'full tests needed'. Then you should rebase to the latest main or amend the last commit of the PR, and push it with --force-with-lease.

@github-actions github-actions Bot added the okay to merge It's ok to merge this PR as it does not require more tests label Feb 10, 2022
@pingzh pingzh force-pushed the pingzh-get_partitions_by_filter branch from 57e8f0b to 78a9df7 Compare February 10, 2022 22:30

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this a breaking change?
is 1 is not desirable in all cases? (if there are valid use cases for 1 then maybe we should make the 4th parameter (limit) configurable thus allowing each user to set whatever value he wishes?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

good call. it isn't a breaking change since it is invoked inside check_for_partition, which returns bool.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Correct! Nice one :).

@pingzh pingzh force-pushed the pingzh-get_partitions_by_filter branch from 78a9df7 to 46e21ba Compare February 10, 2022 23:51
@pingzh pingzh force-pushed the pingzh-get_partitions_by_filter branch from 46e21ba to 20dc017 Compare February 11, 2022 00:58
@potiuk potiuk merged commit d927507 into apache:main Feb 11, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

area:providers okay to merge It's ok to merge this PR as it does not require more tests

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants