Re: [Discussion] About syntax of compaction on specified segments

Posted by Liang Chen on Mar 14, 2018; 7:56am
URL: http://apache-carbondata-dev-mailing-list-archive.168.s1.nabble.com/Discussion-About-syntax-of-compaction-on-specified-segments-tp41566p42002.html

Hi

Thank jinzhou started this discussion session.

I also propose to use the proposed solution from manish, not impacts the
current Major and Minor compaction behaviors.

Regards
Liang

manishgupta88 wrote

> Hi,
>
> I agree with @gvramana <https://github.com/gvramana>
>
>    1. We should *not use* Major/Minor compaction type as they have a
>    specific meaning and both are controlled by the system for taking
> decisions
>    whether segment is valid to be compacted or not.
>    2. We should *not use* carbon.input.segments.default.seg_compact to set
>    the segments to be compacted.
>    3. We should introduce a new compaction type in the DDL 'CUSTOM' as
>    suggested by @gvramana <https://github.com/gvramana> because it
> is
>    something like force compaction for the given segments as it will not
> check
>    for size and frequency of segments. We can work on using the below
> syntax
>    for custom compaction.
>
> *ALTER TABLE [db_name.]table_name COMPACT 'CUSTOM' WHERE SEGMENT.ID
> <http://SEGMENT.ID> IN (0,5,8)*
>
> Once a table is compacted using Custom compaction, then minor compaction
> does not hold good for the custom compacted segment. Custom compacted
> segment should only participate during major compaction if it satisfies
> the
> major compaction size property.
>
> Regards
> Manish Gupta
>
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 2:55 PM, luffy <

> luffy.wang@

> > wrote:
>
>> compaction have major and minor is ok，not need another like custom，i am
>> more
>> concerned about compaction performance.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from: http://apache-carbondata-dev-mailing-list-archive.1130556.
>> n5.nabble.com/
>>

--
Sent from: http://apache-carbondata-dev-mailing-list-archive.1130556.n5.nabble.com/