You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
Use MemoryManager in Join operators, and return errors if the memory budget is exceeded #5220
The idea is to apply the same treatment to Join operators that was done to GroupBy in #3940 and throw an error if their memory budget is exceeded rather than unlimited allocating.
Actually there is also SymmetricHashJoinExec -- but, I suppose, its memory management is a bit more complicated and may be behind the scope of this issue:
It's, sort of, isolated -- at this moment there are no options for planning this operator with DataFusion planner
I don't think that simply throwing error and aborting execution is acceptable for SymmetricHashJoinExec -- if my understanding is correct -- main use case for this operator is joining two unbounded sources (streaming jobs), and from this point of view it doesn't make much sense to limit memory without any spilling fallbacks (subjectively, it doesn't seem correct to fail data streaming job in case of memory overallocation attempt)
My proposal here would be to file separate issue for SymmetricHashJoinExec memory management, and (as I see it) implement memory limitation along with data spilling. Maybe, we can go for it when we have reliable spilling for HashJoinExec, however, prior to it is also an option.
My proposal here would be to file separate issue for SymmetricHashJoinExec memory management, and (as I see it) implement memory limitation along with data spilling. Maybe, we can go for it when we have reliable spilling for HashJoinExec, however, prior to it is also an option.
At a quick glance, this sounds reasonable. But we will do some deeper thinking on this and come back to share our thoughts.
Activity
DDtKey commentedon Mar 14, 2023
Amazing, it looks like only sort-merge join is left!
Thanks @korowa 🚀
korowa commentedon Mar 17, 2023
Actually there is also
SymmetricHashJoinExec-- but, I suppose, its memory management is a bit more complicated and may be behind the scope of this issue:SymmetricHashJoinExec-- if my understanding is correct -- main use case for this operator is joining two unbounded sources (streaming jobs), and from this point of view it doesn't make much sense to limit memory without any spilling fallbacks (subjectively, it doesn't seem correct to fail data streaming job in case of memory overallocation attempt)My proposal here would be to file separate issue for
SymmetricHashJoinExecmemory management, and (as I see it) implement memory limitation along with data spilling. Maybe, we can go for it when we have reliable spilling forHashJoinExec, however, prior to it is also an option.@ozankabak, @metesynnada it would be great to hear your thoughts on it.
ozankabak commentedon Mar 17, 2023
At a quick glance, this sounds reasonable. But we will do some deeper thinking on this and come back to share our thoughts.
alamb commentedon Mar 18, 2023
Filed #5636 for memory management of symmetric hash join