Skip to content

Conversation

@zsxwing
Copy link
Member

@zsxwing zsxwing commented Oct 12, 2016

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

This is the patch for 1.6. It only adds Spark conf spark.files.ignoreCorruptFiles because SQL just uses HadoopRDD directly in 1.6. spark.files.ignoreCorruptFiles is true by default.

How was this patch tested?

The added test.

@zsxwing zsxwing changed the title [SPARK-17850][Core]Add a flag to ignore corrupt files [SPARK-17850][Core]Add a flag to ignore corrupt files (branch 1.6) Oct 12, 2016
try {
finished = !reader.nextKeyValue
} catch {
case _: EOFException if ignoreCorruptFiles => finished = true
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is a behavior change to NewHadoopRDD, which may surprise the existing 1.6 users.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah, I am slightly worried about this change of behavior too.
Though I think it should be fine.

} catch {
case eof: EOFException =>
finished = true
case _: EOFException if ignoreCorruptFiles => finished = true
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I didn't use IOException to keep the default behavior is same as before.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

sounds good

Copy link
Member Author

@zsxwing zsxwing left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The problem here is should HadoopRDD and NewHadoopRDD be consistent. If so, it means we have to break the current behavior.

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Oct 13, 2016

Test build #66853 has finished for PR 15454 at commit 3715203.

  • This patch passes all tests.
  • This patch merges cleanly.
  • This patch adds no public classes.

Copy link
Contributor

@mridulm mridulm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

} catch {
case eof: EOFException =>
finished = true
case _: EOFException if ignoreCorruptFiles => finished = true
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

sounds good

try {
finished = !reader.nextKeyValue
} catch {
case _: EOFException if ignoreCorruptFiles => finished = true
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah, I am slightly worried about this change of behavior too.
Though I think it should be fine.

asfgit pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 13, 2016
## What changes were proposed in this pull request?

This is the patch for 1.6. It only adds Spark conf `spark.files.ignoreCorruptFiles` because SQL just uses HadoopRDD directly in 1.6. `spark.files.ignoreCorruptFiles` is `true` by default.

## How was this patch tested?

The added test.

Author: Shixiong Zhu <[email protected]>

Closes #15454 from zsxwing/SPARK-17850-1.6.
zzcclp pushed a commit to zzcclp/spark that referenced this pull request Oct 14, 2016
## What changes were proposed in this pull request?

This is the patch for 1.6. It only adds Spark conf `spark.files.ignoreCorruptFiles` because SQL just uses HadoopRDD directly in 1.6. `spark.files.ignoreCorruptFiles` is `true` by default.

## How was this patch tested?

The added test.

Author: Shixiong Zhu <[email protected]>

Closes apache#15454 from zsxwing/SPARK-17850-1.6.

(cherry picked from commit 585c565)
@zsxwing
Copy link
Member Author

zsxwing commented Oct 21, 2016

Since I have not yet heard complaints about this for 1.6, and this one may break some user's job, I'm going to close it now.

@zsxwing zsxwing closed this Oct 21, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants