A prototype of vectorized UDAF No. 2. #3

ueshin · 2017-11-20T09:40:32Z

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

This is a prototype of vectorized UDAF.

Proposed API

Introduce @pandas_udaf decorator (annotation) to define vectorized UDAFs which takes one or more pandas.Series and returns one or more scalar values.

We can define vectorized UDAFs if the function supports partial aggregation as:

@pandas_udaf(LongType(), supportsPartial=True)
def p_sum(v):
    return v.sum()

or if the function does not support partial aggregation as:

@pandas_udaf(DoubleType(), supportsPartial=False)
def p_avg(v):
    return v.mean()

We can use it similar to aggregate functions as:

df.groupBy(col('g')).agg(p_sum(col('n')), expr('count(n)'), p_avg(col('n')))

### What changes were proposed in this pull request? `org.apache.spark.sql.kafka010.KafkaDelegationTokenSuite` failed lately. After had a look at the logs it just shows the following fact without any details: ``` Caused by: sbt.ForkMain$ForkError: sun.security.krb5.KrbException: Server not found in Kerberos database (7) - Server not found in Kerberos database ``` Since the issue is intermittent and not able to reproduce it we should add more debug information and wait for reproduction with the extended logs. ### Why are the changes needed? Failing test doesn't give enough debug information. ### Does this PR introduce any user-facing change? No. ### How was this patch tested? I've started the test manually and checked that such additional debug messages show up: ``` >>> KrbApReq: APOptions are 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 >>> EType: sun.security.krb5.internal.crypto.Aes128CtsHmacSha1EType Looking for keys for: kafka/localhostEXAMPLE.COM Added key: 17version: 0 Added key: 23version: 0 Added key: 16version: 0 Found unsupported keytype (3) for kafka/localhostEXAMPLE.COM >>> EType: sun.security.krb5.internal.crypto.Aes128CtsHmacSha1EType Using builtin default etypes for permitted_enctypes default etypes for permitted_enctypes: 17 16 23. >>> EType: sun.security.krb5.internal.crypto.Aes128CtsHmacSha1EType MemoryCache: add 1571936500/174770/16C565221B70AAB2BEFE31A83D13A2F4/client/localhostEXAMPLE.COM to client/localhostEXAMPLE.COM|kafka/localhostEXAMPLE.COM MemoryCache: Existing AuthList: #3: 1571936493/200803/8CD70D280B0862C5DA1FF901ECAD39FE/client/localhostEXAMPLE.COM #2: 1571936499/985009/BAD33290D079DD4E3579A8686EC326B7/client/localhostEXAMPLE.COM #1: 1571936499/995208/B76B9D78A9BE283AC78340157107FD40/client/localhostEXAMPLE.COM ``` Closes apache#26252 from gaborgsomogyi/SPARK-29580. Authored-by: Gabor Somogyi <gabor.g.somogyi@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dhyun@apple.com>

github-actions · 2019-12-18T00:06:44Z

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.

If you'd like to revive this PR, please reopen it!

### 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)apache#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)apache#12] +- InMemoryRelation [<lambda>(id)apache#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>

… without WindowExpression ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? Add WindowFunction check at `CheckAnalysis`. ### Why are the changes needed? Provide friendly error msg. **BEFORE** ```scala scala> sql("select rank() from values(1)").show java.lang.UnsupportedOperationException: Cannot generate code for expression: rank() ``` **AFTER** ```scala scala> sql("select rank() from values(1)").show org.apache.spark.sql.AnalysisException: Window function rank() requires an OVER clause.;; Project [rank() AS RANK()#3] +- LocalRelation [col1#2] ``` ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? Yes, user wiill be given a better error msg. ### How was this patch tested? Pass the newly added UT. Closes apache#28808 from ulysses-you/SPARK-31975. Authored-by: ulysses <youxiduo@weidian.com> Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com>

…ly equivalent children in `RewriteDistinctAggregates` ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? In `RewriteDistinctAggregates`, when grouping aggregate expressions by function children, treat children that are semantically equivalent as the same. ### Why are the changes needed? This PR will reduce the number of projections in the Expand operator when there are multiple distinct aggregations with superficially different children. In some cases, it will eliminate the need for an Expand operator. Example: In the following query, the Expand operator creates 3\*n rows (where n is the number of incoming rows) because it has a projection for each of function children `b + 1`, `1 + b` and `c`. ``` create or replace temp view v1 as select * from values (1, 2, 3.0), (1, 3, 4.0), (2, 4, 2.5), (2, 3, 1.0) v1(a, b, c); select a, count(distinct b + 1), avg(distinct 1 + b) filter (where c > 0), sum(c) from v1 group by a; ``` The Expand operator has three projections (each producing a row for each incoming row): ``` [a#87, null, null, 0, null, UnscaledValue(c#89)], <== projection #1 (for regular aggregation) [a#87, (b#88 + 1), null, 1, null, null], <== projection #2 (for distinct aggregation of b + 1) [a#87, null, (1 + b#88), 2, (c#89 > 0.0), null]], <== projection #3 (for distinct aggregation of 1 + b) ``` In reality, the Expand only needs one projection for `1 + b` and `b + 1`, because they are semantically equivalent. With the proposed change, the Expand operator's projections look like this: ``` [a#67, null, 0, null, UnscaledValue(c#69)], <== projection #1 (for regular aggregations) [a#67, (b#68 + 1), 1, (c#69 > 0.0), null]], <== projection #2 (for distinct aggregation on b + 1 and 1 + b) ``` With one less projection, Expand produces 2\*n rows instead of 3\*n rows, but still produces the correct result. In the case where all distinct aggregates have semantically equivalent children, the Expand operator is not needed at all. Benchmark code in the JIRA (SPARK-40382). Before the PR: ``` distinct aggregates: Best Time(ms) Avg Time(ms) Stdev(ms) Rate(M/s) Per Row(ns) Relative ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ all semantically equivalent 14721 14859 195 5.7 175.5 1.0X some semantically equivalent 14569 14572 5 5.8 173.7 1.0X none semantically equivalent 14408 14488 113 5.8 171.8 1.0X ``` After the PR: ``` distinct aggregates: Best Time(ms) Avg Time(ms) Stdev(ms) Rate(M/s) Per Row(ns) Relative ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ all semantically equivalent 3658 3692 49 22.9 43.6 1.0X some semantically equivalent 9124 9214 127 9.2 108.8 0.4X none semantically equivalent 14601 14777 250 5.7 174.1 0.3X ``` ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No. ### How was this patch tested? New unit tests. Closes apache#37825 from bersprockets/rewritedistinct_issue. Authored-by: Bruce Robbins <bersprockets@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com>

…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)))#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>

…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)))#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>

ueshin added 7 commits November 20, 2017 16:54

Add ArrayDataBuffer.

abecbf8

Add BufferInput.

1fdf77d

Add UserDefinedAggregatePythonFunction.

6d3c070

Add pandas_udaf decorator.

58f1abb

Add ExtractPythonUDAFs.

920aa7d

Modify read_udfs to support pandas_udaf.

c04b8e4

Add tests.

4cc3f69

ueshin mentioned this pull request Nov 20, 2017

A prototype of vectorized UDAF. #1

Closed

ueshin mentioned this pull request Dec 8, 2017

[SPARK-22274][PYTHON][SQL] User-defined aggregation functions with pandas udf (full shuffle) apache/spark#19872

Closed

github-actions bot added the Stale label Dec 18, 2019

github-actions bot closed this Dec 19, 2019

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

A prototype of vectorized UDAF No. 2. #3

A prototype of vectorized UDAF No. 2. #3

ueshin commented Nov 20, 2017

github-actions bot commented Dec 18, 2019

A prototype of vectorized UDAF No. 2. #3

A prototype of vectorized UDAF No. 2. #3

Conversation

ueshin commented Nov 20, 2017

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

github-actions bot commented Dec 18, 2019