[SPARK-50686][SQL] Hash to sort aggregation fallback - memory usage optimization #49314
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
akupchinskiy
changed the title
…n fallback scenario adjust expected spill values in tests
akupchinskiy
force-pushed
the
aggregation-memory-usage-optimization
branch
from
6f526e8 to
e6b8e8e
Compare
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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?
Added deallocation of internal array which is redundant in certain hash to sort aggregation fallback scenarios
Why are the changes needed?
Under memory pressure, allocation of new internal structures is oom-prone. So, it is better to get rid of all the redundant structures at that point to reduce the risk.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No
How was this patch tested?
UnsafeKVExternalSuite spilling tests have been adjusted to the reduced spilled memory introduced by the change.
Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
No