[SPARK-27485] EnsureRequirements.reorder should handle duplicate expressions gracefully #25167
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
…essions gracefully
|
cc @mgaido91 |
hvanhovell
commented
Jul 15, 2019
| return (leftKeys, rightKeys) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // Build a lookup between an expression and the positions its holds in the current key seq. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The previous implementation had the potential for quadratic behavior in quite a few places so I changed all that. I might have gotten carried away here, especially given the fact that number of keys is often quite low.
|
Test build #107705 has finished for PR 25167 at commit
|
|
thanks, merging to master! |
|
also backported to 2.4, cc @dongjoon-hyun |
cloud-fan
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 16, 2019
…essions gracefully ## What changes were proposed in this pull request? When reordering joins EnsureRequirements only checks if all the join keys are present in the partitioning expression seq. This is problematic when the joins keys and and partitioning expressions both contain duplicates but not the same number of duplicates for each expression, e.g. `Seq(a, a, b)` vs `Seq(a, b, b)`. This fails with an index lookup failure in the `reorder` function. This PR fixes this removing the equality checking logic from the `reorderJoinKeys` function, and by doing the multiset equality in the `reorder` function while building the reordered key sequences. ## How was this patch tested? Added a unit test to the `PlannerSuite` and added an integration test to `JoinSuite` Closes #25167 from hvanhovell/SPARK-27485. Authored-by: herman <herman@databricks.com> Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com>
|
Just reverted the commit from 2.4 because it breaks the build. |
|
Thank you for pinging me, @cloud-fan . Thank you for recovering |
|
a late LGTM, sorry for the delay and thanks for the fix @hvanhovell ! |
hvanhovell
added a commit
to hvanhovell/spark
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 16, 2019
…essions gracefully ## What changes were proposed in this pull request? When reordering joins EnsureRequirements only checks if all the join keys are present in the partitioning expression seq. This is problematic when the joins keys and and partitioning expressions both contain duplicates but not the same number of duplicates for each expression, e.g. `Seq(a, a, b)` vs `Seq(a, b, b)`. This fails with an index lookup failure in the `reorder` function. This PR fixes this removing the equality checking logic from the `reorderJoinKeys` function, and by doing the multiset equality in the `reorder` function while building the reordered key sequences. ## How was this patch tested? Added a unit test to the `PlannerSuite` and added an integration test to `JoinSuite` Closes apache#25167 from hvanhovell/SPARK-27485. Authored-by: herman <herman@databricks.com> Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com>
|
Sorry for late response. Looks good to me too. |
vinodkc
pushed a commit
to vinodkc/spark
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 18, 2019
…essions gracefully ## What changes were proposed in this pull request? When reordering joins EnsureRequirements only checks if all the join keys are present in the partitioning expression seq. This is problematic when the joins keys and and partitioning expressions both contain duplicates but not the same number of duplicates for each expression, e.g. `Seq(a, a, b)` vs `Seq(a, b, b)`. This fails with an index lookup failure in the `reorder` function. This PR fixes this removing the equality checking logic from the `reorderJoinKeys` function, and by doing the multiset equality in the `reorder` function while building the reordered key sequences. ## How was this patch tested? Added a unit test to the `PlannerSuite` and added an integration test to `JoinSuite` Closes apache#25167 from hvanhovell/SPARK-27485. Authored-by: herman <herman@databricks.com> Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com>
rluta
pushed a commit
to rluta/spark
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 17, 2019
…essions gracefully ## What changes were proposed in this pull request? When reordering joins EnsureRequirements only checks if all the join keys are present in the partitioning expression seq. This is problematic when the joins keys and and partitioning expressions both contain duplicates but not the same number of duplicates for each expression, e.g. `Seq(a, a, b)` vs `Seq(a, b, b)`. This fails with an index lookup failure in the `reorder` function. This PR fixes this removing the equality checking logic from the `reorderJoinKeys` function, and by doing the multiset equality in the `reorder` function while building the reordered key sequences. ## How was this patch tested? Added a unit test to the `PlannerSuite` and added an integration test to `JoinSuite` Closes apache#25167 from hvanhovell/SPARK-27485. Authored-by: herman <herman@databricks.com> Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com>
kai-chi
pushed a commit
to kai-chi/spark
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 26, 2019
…essions gracefully ## What changes were proposed in this pull request? When reordering joins EnsureRequirements only checks if all the join keys are present in the partitioning expression seq. This is problematic when the joins keys and and partitioning expressions both contain duplicates but not the same number of duplicates for each expression, e.g. `Seq(a, a, b)` vs `Seq(a, b, b)`. This fails with an index lookup failure in the `reorder` function. This PR fixes this removing the equality checking logic from the `reorderJoinKeys` function, and by doing the multiset equality in the `reorder` function while building the reordered key sequences. ## How was this patch tested? Added a unit test to the `PlannerSuite` and added an integration test to `JoinSuite` Closes apache#25167 from hvanhovell/SPARK-27485. Authored-by: herman <herman@databricks.com> 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?
When reordering joins EnsureRequirements only checks if all the join keys are present in the partitioning expression seq. This is problematic when the joins keys and and partitioning expressions both contain duplicates but not the same number of duplicates for each expression, e.g.
Seq(a, a, b)vsSeq(a, b, b). This fails with an index lookup failure in thereorderfunction.This PR fixes this removing the equality checking logic from the
reorderJoinKeysfunction, and by doing the multiset equality in thereorderfunction while building the reordered key sequences.How was this patch tested?
Added a unit test to the
PlannerSuiteand added an integration test toJoinSuite