UT and double check for SPARK-25896 #12
Closed
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
cloud-fan
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 10, 2020
### What changes were proposed in this pull request?
This PR proposes to make `PythonFunction` holds `Seq[Byte]` instead of `Array[Byte]` to be able to compare if the byte array has the same values for the cache manager.
### Why are the changes needed?
Currently the cache manager doesn't use the cache for `udf` if the `udf` is created again even if the functions is the same.
```py
>>> func = lambda x: x
>>> df = spark.range(1)
>>> df.select(udf(func)("id")).cache()
```
```py
>>> df.select(udf(func)("id")).explain()
== Physical Plan ==
*(2) Project [pythonUDF0#14 AS <lambda>(id)#12]
+- BatchEvalPython [<lambda>(id#0L)], [pythonUDF0#14]
+- *(1) Range (0, 1, step=1, splits=12)
```
This is because `PythonFunction` holds `Array[Byte]`, and `equals` method of array equals only when the both array is the same instance.
### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change?
Yes, if the user reuse the Python function for the UDF, the cache manager will detect the same function and use the cache for it.
### How was this patch tested?
I added a test case and manually.
```py
>>> df.select(udf(func)("id")).explain()
== Physical Plan ==
InMemoryTableScan [<lambda>(id)#12]
+- InMemoryRelation [<lambda>(id)#12], StorageLevel(disk, memory, deserialized, 1 replicas)
+- *(2) Project [pythonUDF0#5 AS <lambda>(id)#3]
+- BatchEvalPython [<lambda>(id#0L)], [pythonUDF0#5]
+- *(1) Range (0, 1, step=1, splits=12)
```
Closes apache#28774 from ueshin/issues/SPARK-31945/udf_cache.
Authored-by: Takuya UESHIN <ueshin@databricks.com>
Signed-off-by: HyukjinKwon <gurwls223@apache.org>
|
We're closing this PR because it hasn't been updated in a while. This isn't a judgement on the merit of the PR in any way. It's just a way of keeping the PR queue manageable. |
cloud-fan
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 27, 2024
…n properly
### What changes were proposed in this pull request?
Make `ResolveRelations` handle plan id properly
### Why are the changes needed?
bug fix for Spark Connect, it won't affect classic Spark SQL
before this PR:
```
from pyspark.sql import functions as sf
spark.range(10).withColumn("value_1", sf.lit(1)).write.saveAsTable("test_table_1")
spark.range(10).withColumnRenamed("id", "index").withColumn("value_2", sf.lit(2)).write.saveAsTable("test_table_2")
df1 = spark.read.table("test_table_1")
df2 = spark.read.table("test_table_2")
df3 = spark.read.table("test_table_1")
join1 = df1.join(df2, on=df1.id==df2.index).select(df2.index, df2.value_2)
join2 = df3.join(join1, how="left", on=join1.index==df3.id)
join2.schema
```
fails with
```
AnalysisException: [CANNOT_RESOLVE_DATAFRAME_COLUMN] Cannot resolve dataframe column "id". It's probably because of illegal references like `df1.select(df2.col("a"))`. SQLSTATE: 42704
```
That is due to existing plan caching in `ResolveRelations` doesn't work with Spark Connect
```
=== Applying Rule org.apache.spark.sql.catalyst.analysis.Analyzer$ResolveRelations ===
'[#12]Join LeftOuter, '`==`('index, 'id) '[#12]Join LeftOuter, '`==`('index, 'id)
!:- '[#9]UnresolvedRelation [test_table_1], [], false :- '[#9]SubqueryAlias spark_catalog.default.test_table_1
!+- '[#11]Project ['index, 'value_2] : +- 'UnresolvedCatalogRelation `spark_catalog`.`default`.`test_table_1`, [], false
! +- '[#10]Join Inner, '`==`('id, 'index) +- '[#11]Project ['index, 'value_2]
! :- '[#7]UnresolvedRelation [test_table_1], [], false +- '[#10]Join Inner, '`==`('id, 'index)
! +- '[#8]UnresolvedRelation [test_table_2], [], false :- '[#9]SubqueryAlias spark_catalog.default.test_table_1
! : +- 'UnresolvedCatalogRelation `spark_catalog`.`default`.`test_table_1`, [], false
! +- '[#8]SubqueryAlias spark_catalog.default.test_table_2
! +- 'UnresolvedCatalogRelation `spark_catalog`.`default`.`test_table_2`, [], false
Can not resolve 'id with plan 7
```
`[#7]UnresolvedRelation [test_table_1], [], false` was wrongly resolved to the cached one
```
:- '[#9]SubqueryAlias spark_catalog.default.test_table_1
+- 'UnresolvedCatalogRelation `spark_catalog`.`default`.`test_table_1`, [], false
```
### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change?
yes, bug fix
### How was this patch tested?
added ut
### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
ci
Closes apache#45214 from zhengruifeng/connect_fix_read_join.
Authored-by: Ruifeng Zheng <ruifengz@apache.org>
Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dhyun@apple.com>
cloud-fan
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 7, 2024
…plan properly ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? Make `ResolveRelations` handle plan id properly cherry-pick bugfix apache#45214 to 3.5 ### Why are the changes needed? bug fix for Spark Connect, it won't affect classic Spark SQL before this PR: ``` from pyspark.sql import functions as sf spark.range(10).withColumn("value_1", sf.lit(1)).write.saveAsTable("test_table_1") spark.range(10).withColumnRenamed("id", "index").withColumn("value_2", sf.lit(2)).write.saveAsTable("test_table_2") df1 = spark.read.table("test_table_1") df2 = spark.read.table("test_table_2") df3 = spark.read.table("test_table_1") join1 = df1.join(df2, on=df1.id==df2.index).select(df2.index, df2.value_2) join2 = df3.join(join1, how="left", on=join1.index==df3.id) join2.schema ``` fails with ``` AnalysisException: [CANNOT_RESOLVE_DATAFRAME_COLUMN] Cannot resolve dataframe column "id". It's probably because of illegal references like `df1.select(df2.col("a"))`. SQLSTATE: 42704 ``` That is due to existing plan caching in `ResolveRelations` doesn't work with Spark Connect ``` === Applying Rule org.apache.spark.sql.catalyst.analysis.Analyzer$ResolveRelations === '[#12]Join LeftOuter, '`==`('index, 'id) '[#12]Join LeftOuter, '`==`('index, 'id) !:- '[#9]UnresolvedRelation [test_table_1], [], false :- '[#9]SubqueryAlias spark_catalog.default.test_table_1 !+- '[#11]Project ['index, 'value_2] : +- 'UnresolvedCatalogRelation `spark_catalog`.`default`.`test_table_1`, [], false ! +- '[#10]Join Inner, '`==`('id, 'index) +- '[#11]Project ['index, 'value_2] ! :- '[#7]UnresolvedRelation [test_table_1], [], false +- '[#10]Join Inner, '`==`('id, 'index) ! +- '[#8]UnresolvedRelation [test_table_2], [], false :- '[#9]SubqueryAlias spark_catalog.default.test_table_1 ! : +- 'UnresolvedCatalogRelation `spark_catalog`.`default`.`test_table_1`, [], false ! +- '[#8]SubqueryAlias spark_catalog.default.test_table_2 ! +- 'UnresolvedCatalogRelation `spark_catalog`.`default`.`test_table_2`, [], false Can not resolve 'id with plan 7 ``` `[#7]UnresolvedRelation [test_table_1], [], false` was wrongly resolved to the cached one ``` :- '[#9]SubqueryAlias spark_catalog.default.test_table_1 +- 'UnresolvedCatalogRelation `spark_catalog`.`default`.`test_table_1`, [], false ``` ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? yes, bug fix ### How was this patch tested? added ut ### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? ci Closes apache#46291 from zhengruifeng/connect_fix_read_join_35. Authored-by: Ruifeng Zheng <ruifengz@apache.org> Signed-off-by: Ruifeng Zheng <ruifengz@apache.org>
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?
Add UT to check:
How was this patch tested?
New UT