[SPARK-48065][SQL] SPJ: allowJoinKeysSubsetOfPartitionKeys is too strict #46325
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
### What changes were proposed in this pull request? If spark.sql.v2.bucketing.allowJoinKeysSubsetOfPartitionKeys.enabled is true, change KeyGroupedPartitioning.satisfies0(distribution) check from all clustering keys (here, join keys) being in partition keys, to the two sets overlapping. ### Why are the changes needed? If spark.sql.v2.bucketing.allowJoinKeysSubsetOfPartitionKeys.enabled is true, then SPJ no longer triggers if there are more join keys than partition keys. But SPJ is supported in this case if flag is false. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No ### How was this patch tested? -Added tests in KeyGroupedPartitioningSuite
szehon-ho
force-pushed
the
fix_spj_less_join_key
branch
from
18aec40
to
c2c2659
Compare
|
@sunchao I think its a simple fix, can you take a look? |
|
Merged to master, thanks @szehon-ho ! Do you think we need to backport this to branch-3.4 and branch-3.5? |
|
Thanks for fast review! Yea will do that. |
|
Actually just checked, looks like original pr #42306 was not backported because it is a new feature and not bug fix. So I think no need. |
JacobZheng0927
pushed a commit
to JacobZheng0927/spark
that referenced
this pull request
May 11, 2024
### What changes were proposed in this pull request? If spark.sql.v2.bucketing.allowJoinKeysSubsetOfPartitionKeys.enabled is true, change KeyGroupedPartitioning.satisfies0(distribution) check from all clustering keys (here, join keys) being in partition keys, to the two sets overlapping. ### Why are the changes needed? If spark.sql.v2.bucketing.allowJoinKeysSubsetOfPartitionKeys.enabled is true, then SPJ no longer triggers if there are more join keys than partition keys. But SPJ is supported in this case if flag is false. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No ### How was this patch tested? Added tests in KeyGroupedPartitioningSuite ### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? No Closes apache#46325 from szehon-ho/fix_spj_less_join_key. Authored-by: Szehon Ho <szehon.apache@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Chao Sun <chao@openai.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?
If spark.sql.v2.bucketing.allowJoinKeysSubsetOfPartitionKeys.enabled is true, change KeyGroupedPartitioning.satisfies0(distribution) check from all clustering keys (here, join keys) being in partition keys, to the two sets overlapping.
Why are the changes needed?
If spark.sql.v2.bucketing.allowJoinKeysSubsetOfPartitionKeys.enabled is true, then SPJ no longer triggers if there are more join keys than partition keys. But SPJ is supported in this case if flag is false.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No
How was this patch tested?
Added tests in KeyGroupedPartitioningSuite
Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
No