[SPARK-51185][Core][3.5] Revert simplifications to PartitionedFileUtil API to reduce memory requirements #49995
+16
−10
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
HyukjinKwon
approved these changes
Feb 18, 2025
|
Compilation failed, probably due to 3.5 using scala 2.12 |
LukasRupprecht
changed the title
LukasRupprecht
force-pushed
the
def_get-path_3.5
branch
from
c0a3cb5 to
b0bbad1
Compare
|
Hmm, looks like the build failures are in which this PR is not touching. I just rebased and checks are running again. |
|
Hmm, looks like it's still failing compilation with the same error. @cloud-fan Do you have an idea why the build would fail with a supposedly unrelated error? |
|
oh it's broken by other commits and #50008 is fixing it |
|
@LukasRupprecht can you rebase your PR and try again? The issue should have been resolved. |
|
Thank you for making a PR, @LukasRupprecht . Is this target for Apache Spark 3.5.5, @HyukjinKwon and @cloud-fan ? |
LukasRupprecht
force-pushed
the
def_get-path_3.5
branch
from
b0bbad1 to
09b5075
Compare
cloud-fan
approved these changes
Feb 21, 2025
|
@dongjoon-hyun yes it is, let me merge it now, thanks all! |
cloud-fan
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 21, 2025
…l API to reduce memory requirements ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This PR reverts an earlier change (#41632) that converted FileStatusWithMetadata.getPath from a def to a lazy val in order to simplify the PartitionedFileUtils helpers. This is the 3.5 PR. The main PR for 4.0 is #49915. ### Why are the changes needed? The conversion of getPath from a def to a lazy val increases the memory requirements because now paths need to be kept in memory as long as the FileStatusWithMetadata exists. As paths are expensive to store, this can lead to higher memory utilization and increase the risk for OOMs. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No ### How was this patch tested? This is a small revert to code that has already existed before so the existing tests are sufficient. ### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? No Closes #49995 from LukasRupprecht/def_get-path_3.5. Authored-by: Lukas Rupprecht <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <[email protected]>
|
Got it. Thank you, @cloud-fan . |
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?
This PR reverts an earlier change (#41632) that converted FileStatusWithMetadata.getPath from a def to a lazy val in order to simplify the PartitionedFileUtils helpers.
This is the 3.5 PR. The main PR for 4.0 is #49915.
Why are the changes needed?
The conversion of getPath from a def to a lazy val increases the memory requirements because now paths need to be kept in memory as long as the FileStatusWithMetadata exists. As paths are expensive to store, this can lead to higher memory utilization and increase the risk for OOMs.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No
How was this patch tested?
This is a small revert to code that has already existed before so the existing tests are sufficient.
Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
No