Skip to content

[MINOR][DOCS] Fix incorrect description of constraint on spark.sql.adaptive.coalescePartitions.minPartitionSize#49872

Closed
JoshRosen wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:masterfrom
JoshRosen:fix-spark.sql.adaptive.coalescePartitions.minPartitionSize-doc
Closed

[MINOR][DOCS] Fix incorrect description of constraint on spark.sql.adaptive.coalescePartitions.minPartitionSize#49872
JoshRosen wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:masterfrom
JoshRosen:fix-spark.sql.adaptive.coalescePartitions.minPartitionSize-doc

Conversation

@JoshRosen
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

This PR addresses a minor problem in the SQL performance guide's description of the spark.sql.adaptive.coalescePartitions.minPartitionSize configuration.

Currently, the guide says:

The minimum size of shuffle partitions after coalescing. Its value can be at most 20% of spark.sql.adaptive.advisoryPartitionSizeInBytes. This is useful when the target size is ignored during partition coalescing, which is the default case.

but the second sentence is not true because the 20% limitation was removed in #33655 (comment) (SPARK-36430), which shipped in 3.2.0. That PR updated the in-code description but not the guide on the web.

Why are the changes needed?

Incorrect doc is misleading.

Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?

No.

How was this patch tested?

n/a

Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?

No.

@JoshRosen JoshRosen requested a review from cloud-fan February 11, 2025 02:30
@github-actions github-actions Bot added the DOCS label Feb 11, 2025
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@cloud-fan cloud-fan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

good catch!

@cloud-fan
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

cloud-fan commented Feb 11, 2025

thanks, merging to master/4.0/3.5

@cloud-fan cloud-fan closed this in e7ceb5b Feb 11, 2025
cloud-fan pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 11, 2025
…aptive.coalescePartitions.minPartitionSize

### What changes were proposed in this pull request?

This PR addresses a minor problem in the SQL performance guide's description of the `spark.sql.adaptive.coalescePartitions.minPartitionSize` configuration.

Currently, the guide says:

> The minimum size of shuffle partitions after coalescing. Its value can be at most 20% of `spark.sql.adaptive.advisoryPartitionSizeInBytes`. This is useful when the target size is ignored during partition coalescing, which is the default case.

but the second sentence is not true because the 20% limitation was removed in #33655 (comment) (SPARK-36430), which shipped in 3.2.0. That PR updated the in-code description but not the guide on the web.

### Why are the changes needed?

Incorrect doc is misleading.

### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change?

No.

### How was this patch tested?

n/a

### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?

No.

Closes #49872 from JoshRosen/fix-spark.sql.adaptive.coalescePartitions.minPartitionSize-doc.

Authored-by: Josh Rosen <joshrosen@databricks.com>
Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com>
(cherry picked from commit e7ceb5b)
Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com>
cloud-fan pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 11, 2025
…aptive.coalescePartitions.minPartitionSize

### What changes were proposed in this pull request?

This PR addresses a minor problem in the SQL performance guide's description of the `spark.sql.adaptive.coalescePartitions.minPartitionSize` configuration.

Currently, the guide says:

> The minimum size of shuffle partitions after coalescing. Its value can be at most 20% of `spark.sql.adaptive.advisoryPartitionSizeInBytes`. This is useful when the target size is ignored during partition coalescing, which is the default case.

but the second sentence is not true because the 20% limitation was removed in #33655 (comment) (SPARK-36430), which shipped in 3.2.0. That PR updated the in-code description but not the guide on the web.

### Why are the changes needed?

Incorrect doc is misleading.

### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change?

No.

### How was this patch tested?

n/a

### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?

No.

Closes #49872 from JoshRosen/fix-spark.sql.adaptive.coalescePartitions.minPartitionSize-doc.

Authored-by: Josh Rosen <joshrosen@databricks.com>
Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com>
(cherry picked from commit e7ceb5b)
Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com>
zifeif2 pushed a commit to zifeif2/spark that referenced this pull request Nov 14, 2025
…aptive.coalescePartitions.minPartitionSize

### What changes were proposed in this pull request?

This PR addresses a minor problem in the SQL performance guide's description of the `spark.sql.adaptive.coalescePartitions.minPartitionSize` configuration.

Currently, the guide says:

> The minimum size of shuffle partitions after coalescing. Its value can be at most 20% of `spark.sql.adaptive.advisoryPartitionSizeInBytes`. This is useful when the target size is ignored during partition coalescing, which is the default case.

but the second sentence is not true because the 20% limitation was removed in apache#33655 (comment) (SPARK-36430), which shipped in 3.2.0. That PR updated the in-code description but not the guide on the web.

### Why are the changes needed?

Incorrect doc is misleading.

### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change?

No.

### How was this patch tested?

n/a

### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?

No.

Closes apache#49872 from JoshRosen/fix-spark.sql.adaptive.coalescePartitions.minPartitionSize-doc.

Authored-by: Josh Rosen <joshrosen@databricks.com>
Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com>
(cherry picked from commit 06a11f3)
Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants