HIVE-28765: Iceberg: Incorrect partition statistics on time travel + partition evolution #5748
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
okumin
force-pushed
the
HIVE-28765-partition-snapshot
branch
from
c33a0d6 to
7b1b1b8
Compare
asf-ci-hive
added
tests pending
tests unstable
and removed
tests unstable
tests pending
labels
okumin
force-pushed
the
HIVE-28765-partition-snapshot
branch
from
7b1b1b8 to
6caf105
Compare
asf-ci-hive
added
tests pending
tests failed
and removed
tests unstable
tests pending
tests failed
labels
okumin
force-pushed
the
HIVE-28765-partition-snapshot
branch
from
6caf105 to
01a4117
Compare
asf-ci-hive
added
tests pending
tests unstable
and removed
tests failed
tests pending
labels
…partition evolution
okumin
force-pushed
the
HIVE-28765-partition-snapshot
branch
from
01a4117 to
e11c40d
Compare
asf-ci-hive
added
tests pending
tests passed
and removed
tests unstable
tests pending
labels
okumin
commented
Apr 12, 2025
iceberg/iceberg-handler/src/main/java/org/apache/iceberg/mr/hive/HiveIcebergStorageHandler.java
Show resolved
Hide resolved
okumin
changed the title
deniskuzZ
reviewed
Apr 16, 2025
| return false; | ||
| } | ||
| Table table = IcebergTableUtil.getTable(conf, hmsTable.getTTable()); | ||
| Snapshot snapshot = IcebergTableUtil.getTableSnapshot(table, hmsTable); | ||
| boolean isTimeTravel = snapshot != null && table.currentSnapshot() != null && |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@okumin, could we use equals here?
public boolean isPartitioned(org.apache.hadoop.hive.ql.metadata.Table hmsTable) {
if (!hmsTable.getTTable().isSetId()) {
return false;
}
Table table = IcebergTableUtil.getTable(conf, hmsTable.getTTable());
Snapshot snapshot = IcebergTableUtil.getTableSnapshot(table, hmsTable);
boolean isTimeTravelOrBranch = snapshot != null && snapshot.equals(table.currentSnapshot());
if (isTimeTravelOrBranch && hasUndergonePartitionEvolution(table)) {
return false;
}
return table.spec().isPartitioned();
}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree that it is simpler and tolerant with unexpected snapshots, such as having the same snapshot id but different timestamps.
https://github.com/apache/iceberg/blob/c338323b2e9cd8a862fdf328ceacc1b59ea6275a/core/src/main/java/org/apache/iceberg/BaseSnapshot.java#L320-L332
I updated it. I kept the variable name, isTimeTravel, assuming reading a different snapshot using tag/branch sounds like a time-travel query.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
forked branch could be ahead of main, so I wouldn't call it time-travel
|
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.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-28765
We use not partition stats but table stats when we access a complicated table with tagging or branching.
Why are the changes needed?
We would like to improve the query plan for a time-travel read with tagging and branching.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No
Is the change a dependency upgrade?
No
How was this patch tested?
Updated an existing query file.