[SPARK-14018][SQL] Use 64-bit num records in BenchmarkWholeStageCodegen #11839
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
|
Test build #53603 has finished for PR 11839 at commit
|
Contributor
Author
|
cc @davies and @sameeragarwal |
Contributor
|
LGTM |
Contributor
Author
|
Thanks - merging in master. |
roygao94
pushed a commit
to roygao94/spark
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 22, 2016
## What changes were proposed in this pull request? 500L << 20 is actually pretty close to 32-bit int limit. I was trying to increase this to 500L << 23 and got negative numbers instead. ## How was this patch tested? I'm only modifying test code. Author: Reynold Xin <rxin@databricks.com> Closes apache#11839 from rxin/SPARK-14018.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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?
500L << 20 is actually pretty close to 32-bit int limit. I was trying to increase this to 500L << 23 and got negative numbers instead.
How was this patch tested?
I'm only modifying test code.