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

Add MemoryReservation to batch splitting in joins #13003

Open
alamb opened this issue Oct 18, 2024 · 3 comments
Open

Add MemoryReservation to batch splitting in joins #13003

alamb opened this issue Oct 18, 2024 · 3 comments
Assignees
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@alamb
Copy link
Contributor

alamb commented Oct 18, 2024

Is your feature request related to a problem or challenge?

Follow on to #12969 and #12633

In #12633 @mhilton noted that joins sometimes generate giant record batches which causes issues. @alihan-synnada fixed this in #12969 but internally sometimes the joins still generate giant output batches.

As @mhilton says in #12969 (comment)

Unfortunately this doesn't address the actual problem with creating giant batches, which is they require a lot of memory and that memory isn't accounted for in any MemoryPool. Wiring a MemoryReservation into BatchSplitter would probably be enough to address this though.

Describe the solution you'd like

I would like the memory accounting to take into account the large output batch

Describe alternatives you've considered

Wiring a MemoryReservation into BatchSplitter would probably be enough to address

Additional context

No response

@jatin510
Copy link
Contributor

can i work on this task @alamb ?

@alamb
Copy link
Contributor Author

alamb commented Oct 20, 2024

@jatin510 of course -- see the guide here https://datafusion.apache.org/contributor-guide/index.html#open-contribution-and-assigning-tickets !

@jatin510
Copy link
Contributor

take

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants