-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 759
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
bug: Regression on COPY INTO #17284
Comments
Thank you for reporting this issue. Here’s what I have so far: It looks like there are two separate concerns here: Unexpected diff schema error (bug in v0.8.688)
To gather more information, you could check the opendal logs filtered by the query ID in the file logs. This might provide additional context about what happened during the operation. Copy operation becoming slower (v0.8.688)
I will continue work on this. |
Thanks, I will endeavour to get more information on this for you today 👍 |
I have managed to replicate the same in a test environment. Focusing initially on the diff schema problem, I tried the following:
The query logs for this are attached. In this kubernetes environment, I have 3 meta pods and 1 query pod. In answer to your questions on diff schema error: |
Please note, dropping back to query pod v1.2.687-nightly worked in my test environment without any performance implication - but meta version remained v1.2.688 otherwise some heartbeat issue was causing failure |
Additional info. I have not been able to successfully replicate the copy into becoming slower. I think it can possibly be put down to communication issue between meta/query at the point I was trying? |
I checked the change log, still no idea v1.2.687-nightly...v1.2.688-nightly Could you please double-check that the upload paths of the two upload-copy threads are correct and not the same? the data_0.zip you uploaded here is 7KB, while the file size in the log is about 5KB. but I am not sure the file is the one expected to be load in the query corresponding to the query id |
@youngsofun, the paths for the uploads are definitely different, each upload path in GCS includes the table name and then a unique load identifier, as shown below, extracted from the log file. I'm sure we would have seen issues loading earlier if the paths had been the same because the tables schemas are all different.
Possibly of relevance is that, prior to calling the COPY statement, a TRUNCATE is called on each of the tables. |
This was the parquet file for that query - it was not deleted from GCS yet |
I guess another thing of note is that, despite being loaded from different gcs locations, the name of the files in each of these uploads is |
Further information, if I change the name of the files uploaded to GCS and give them a unique name like |
can you try this: reproduce again, with the ending |
just to make sure, by |
Yes, a singular load via COPY INTO |
I will try this now |
seems this can explain #17312 |
@youngsofun - Removal of the trailing slash does seem to fix the issue. I guess we're not specifying a pattern, should that matter? |
#17312 is easier to fix, I`ll do it tomorrow. |
Search before asking
Version
v1.2.688-nightly
What's Wrong?
Upgraded from v1.2.680-nightly to v1.2.688-nightly and one of our testing workflows began to fail. It loads data from a parquet file via COPY INTO from GCS. It reports that the schema is different, but inspection of table and parquet file show the 2 items to be in order.
Please note, downgrading to v1.2.687 made the statements work again, although they seem to be very slow - 7 seconds when on v1.2.680 vs 90 seconds on v1.2.687
We are loading two tables in parallel, both via COPY INTO statements, it looks like the actual schema reported in the message below is the schema of the other table, showed here.
However, the load for that table also reports an error and the actual schema for that is a completely unrelated table.
Data is
data_0.zip
Error message is as follows:
How to Reproduce?
I'm not sure what steps to give here to reproduce. I will try to replicate exactly and update...
Are you willing to submit PR?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: