-Re: External Partition Table
Timothy Potter 2013-10-31, 22:49
This seems like a matter of style vs. any performance benefit / cost ... if
you're going to do a lot of queries just based on month or year, then #2
might be easier, e.g.
select * from foo where year = 2013 seems a little cleaner than select *
from foo where date >= 20130101 and date <= 20131231 (not sure how you're
encoding dates into a INT but I think you get the idea)
I do something similar but my partition fields are strings, like
2013-10-31_0000 (which has the nice property of lexically sorting the same
as numeric sort).
I'm assuming they will both have the same performance because Hive is still
selecting the same number of input paths in both scenarios, one just
happens to be a little deeper.
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Raj Hadoop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am planning for a Hive External Partition Table based on a date.
> Which one of the below yields a better performance or both have the same
> 1) Partition based on one folder per day
> LIKE date INT
> 2) Partition based on one folder per year / month / day ( So it has three
> LIKE year INT, month INT, day INT