Odd even test spj uneven buckets #3
Open
Conversation
This file contains 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
… they are not equal ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? -- Allow SPJ between 'compatible' bucket funtions -- Add a mechanism to define 'reducible' functions, one function whose output can be 'reduced' to another for all inputs. ### Why are the changes needed? -- SPJ currently applies only if the partition transform expressions on both sides are identifical. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No ### How was this patch tested? Added new tests in KeyGroupedPartitioningSuite ### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? No
…spj-uneven-buckets
szehon-ho
force-pushed
the
spj-uneven-buckets
branch
from
2674e16
to
dc2fba1
Compare
szehon-ho
force-pushed
the
spj-uneven-buckets
branch
3 times, most recently
from
7a25afe
to
0c6f494
Compare
szehon-ho
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 24, 2024
…edExpression() ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? In `EquivalentExpressions.addExpr()`, add a guard `supportedExpression()` to make it consistent with `addExprTree()` and `getExprState()`. ### Why are the changes needed? This fixes a regression caused by apache#39010 which added the `supportedExpression()` to `addExprTree()` and `getExprState()` but not `addExpr()`. One example of a use case affected by the inconsistency is the `PhysicalAggregation` pattern in physical planning. There, it calls `addExpr()` to deduplicate the aggregate expressions, and then calls `getExprState()` to deduplicate the result expressions. Guarding inconsistently will cause the aggregate and result expressions go out of sync, eventually resulting in query execution error (or whole-stage codegen error). ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? This fixes a regression affecting Spark 3.3.2+, where it may manifest as an error running aggregate operators with higher-order functions. Example running the SQL command: ```sql select max(transform(array(id), x -> x)), max(transform(array(id), x -> x)) from range(2) ``` example error message before the fix: ``` java.lang.IllegalStateException: Couldn't find max(transform(array(id#0L), lambdafunction(lambda x#2L, lambda x#2L, false)))apache#4 in [max(transform(array(id#0L), lambdafunction(lambda x#1L, lambda x#1L, false)))#3] ``` after the fix this error is gone. ### How was this patch tested? Added new test cases to `SubexpressionEliminationSuite` for the immediate issue, and to `DataFrameAggregateSuite` for an example of user-visible symptom. Closes apache#40473 from rednaxelafx/spark-42851. Authored-by: Kris Mok <kris.mok@databricks.com> Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com> (cherry picked from commit ef0a76e) Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com>
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?
Why are the changes needed?
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
How was this patch tested?