Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Also check for Presto Native operator names in QueryStats. #22701

Closed

Conversation

spershin
Copy link
Contributor

@spershin spershin commented May 8, 2024

Presto Native operator names are different.

Description

To properly report 'shuffled' and 'raw input' query stats when running Presto Native, we also check Presto Native operator names.

== NO RELEASE NOTE ==

@spershin spershin requested a review from a team as a code owner May 8, 2024 22:22
@spershin spershin requested a review from tdcmeehan May 8, 2024 22:25
Copy link
Contributor

@xiaoxmeng xiaoxmeng left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@spershin thanks!

xiaoxmeng
xiaoxmeng previously approved these changes May 9, 2024
@spershin spershin force-pushed the CheckPrestoNativeOperatorNames branch from dac55d1 to 93da9f5 Compare May 9, 2024 20:42
@spershin spershin force-pushed the CheckPrestoNativeOperatorNames branch 2 times, most recently from 26423a9 to 2799969 Compare May 9, 2024 20:48
Presto Native operator names are different.
To properly report 'shuffled' and 'raw input' query stats
when running Presto Native, we also check Presto Native operator names.
@spershin spershin force-pushed the CheckPrestoNativeOperatorNames branch from 2799969 to e62a59b Compare May 10, 2024 00:20
@tdcmeehan
Copy link
Contributor

Wondering if we can just add a boolean flag on the OperatorStats indicating that this was for an exchange? This actually would remove the need to hardcode operator names or check if we're using native execution altogether. I took a brief look and it looks like, at least from the Java side, it should be pretty straightforward.

Copy link
Contributor

@xiaoxmeng xiaoxmeng left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@spershin Thanks for the update!

@spershin
Copy link
Contributor Author

@tdcmeehan

So, does this mean that we want two bool flags?
One for Exchange/Merge and another one for Scan?

@tdcmeehan
Copy link
Contributor

@spershin yes, that works.

@spershin
Copy link
Contributor Author

@tdcmeehan

I might need some pointer to code site(s) where we populate the OperatorStats.
Members like operatorType, operatorId, planNodeId and such.
It is not trivial to find for some reason.

@spershin
Copy link
Contributor Author

NVM, found it.

@spershin
Copy link
Contributor Author

I don't think it is a good idea to add two struct fields just for that.
Closing the PR.

@spershin spershin closed this May 21, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants