Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
[SPARK-3190][GraphX] fix VertexRDD.count exceed on large graph - #12835
Closed
liyuance wants to merge 1 commit into
Closed
[SPARK-3190][GraphX] fix VertexRDD.count exceed on large graph#12835liyuance wants to merge 1 commit into
liyuance wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
AmplabJenkins
commented
May 2, 2016
Can one of the admins verify this patch? |
rxin
commented
May 2, 2016
Contributor
cc @ankurdave |
maropu added a commit
to maropu/spark
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 23, 2017
Closesapache#11785Closesapache#13027Closesapache#13614Closesapache#13761Closesapache#15197Closesapache#14006Closesapache#12576Closesapache#15447Closesapache#13259Closesapache#15616Closesapache#14473Closesapache#16638Closesapache#16146Closesapache#17269Closesapache#17313Closesapache#17418Closesapache#17485Closesapache#17551Closesapache#17463Closesapache#17625Closesapache#10739Closesapache#15193Closesapache#15344Closesapache#14804Closesapache#16993Closesapache#17040Closesapache#15180Closesapache#17238
zifeif2 pushed a commit
to zifeif2/spark
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 22, 2025
# What changes were proposed in this pull request? This PR proposes to close stale PRs, mostly the same instances with apache#18017Closesapache#11459Closesapache#13833Closesapache#13720Closesapache#12506Closesapache#12456Closesapache#12252Closesapache#17689Closesapache#17791Closesapache#18163Closesapache#17640Closesapache#17926Closesapache#18163Closesapache#12506Closesapache#18044Closesapache#14036Closesapache#15831Closesapache#14461Closesapache#17638Closesapache#18222 Added: Closesapache#18045Closesapache#18061Closesapache#18010Closesapache#18041Closesapache#18124Closesapache#18130Closesapache#12217 Added: Closesapache#16291Closesapache#17480Closesapache#14995 Added: Closesapache#12835Closesapache#17141 ## How was this patch tested? N/A Author: hyukjinkwon <gurwls223@gmail.com> Closesapache#18223 from HyukjinKwon/close-stale-prs.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
As [SPARK-3190] and #2106 described, VertexRDDs with more than 4 billion elements are counted incorrectly due to integer overflow when summing partition sizes.
And the PR above expected to fix the issue by converting partition sizes to Longs before summing them. But when the number of vertices in specific partition exceed Integer.MAX_VALUE also can repreduce this issue.
The fundamental cause of this problem is the variable “size” is defined as type Int in class VertexPartitionBase.
def size: Int = mask.cardinality()