Visitar URL original
Spark: Allow distributed planning with unlimited driver results by abbywh · Pull Request #18389 · apache/iceberg · GitHub
Skip to content

Spark: Allow distributed planning with unlimited driver results - #18389

Open
abbywh wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:mainfrom
abbywh:fix/spark-unlimited-result-distributed-planning
Open

abbywh wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:mainfrom
abbywh:fix/spark-unlimited-result-distributed-planning

Conversation

@abbywh

@abbywh abbywh commented Oct 5, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Spark treats spark.driver.maxResultSize=0 as unlimited, but Iceberg's 256 MiB planning check treats it as too small and forces local manifest planning. Allow distributed planning for zero while keeping the local path for positive limits below the threshold.

Test plan: Verify data and delete planning with zero, 128 MiB, and 256 MiB limits. The focused Spark 3.5 tests, formatting, checkstyle, and module build passed.


AI Disclosure

  • Model: GPT-6
  • Platform/Tool: Codex
  • Human Oversight: Observed in production
  • Prompt Summary: Fix distributed planning when Spark's driver result size limit is unlimited.

Spark treats maxResultSize=0 as unlimited, so do not force local manifest planning for that setting.

Generated-by: Codex
@github-actions github-actions Bot added the spark label Oct 5, 2026

@gerashegalov gerashegalov left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM
the practice is to start with the highest Spark shim PR followed up with backports once the first PR is merged. Consider submitting 4.2 fix first

@abbywh

abbywh commented Oct 9, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

@gerashegalov can do. I haven't checked this on 4.2 but will add it.

This branch has not been deployed

No deployments
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