[SPARK-53308] [SQL] Don't remove aliases in RemoveRedundantAliases that would cause duplicates #52060
+92
−10
Conversation
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
mihailoale-db
changed the title
mihailoale-db
force-pushed
the
unionduplicates
branch
9 times, most recently
from
f4d84dc to
4b170e8
Compare
mihailoale-db
force-pushed
the
unionduplicates
branch
from
4b170e8 to
74a217d
Compare
|
thanks, merging to master! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
In case a
Project,AggregateorWindowis a child ofUnion, we don't remove anAliasin case it is on top of anAttributewhich exists in the output set of the operator. This is needed because otherwise, we end up having an operator with duplicates in its output. When that happens,Unionis not resolved and we fail (but we shouldn't).Consider this example:
In this PR I propose that we fix above query (it should pass, now it fails) by not removing
Aliases underUnionthat would cause duplicates.Why are the changes needed?
To fix a query pattern.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No.
How was this patch tested?
Added test.
Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
No.