add a local test for spark-side arrow #4
Merged
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
BryanCutler
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 20, 2017
…pressions
## What changes were proposed in this pull request?
This PR changes the direction of expression transformation in the DecimalPrecision rule. Previously, the expressions were transformed down, which led to incorrect result types when decimal expressions had other decimal expressions as their operands. The root cause of this issue was in visiting outer nodes before their children. Consider the example below:
```
val inputSchema = StructType(StructField("col", DecimalType(26, 6)) :: Nil)
val sc = spark.sparkContext
val rdd = sc.parallelize(1 to 2).map(_ => Row(BigDecimal(12)))
val df = spark.createDataFrame(rdd, inputSchema)
// Works correctly since no nested decimal expression is involved
// Expected result type: (26, 6) * (26, 6) = (38, 12)
df.select($"col" * $"col").explain(true)
df.select($"col" * $"col").printSchema()
// Gives a wrong result since there is a nested decimal expression that should be visited first
// Expected result type: ((26, 6) * (26, 6)) * (26, 6) = (38, 12) * (26, 6) = (38, 18)
df.select($"col" * $"col" * $"col").explain(true)
df.select($"col" * $"col" * $"col").printSchema()
```
The example above gives the following output:
```
// Correct result without sub-expressions
== Parsed Logical Plan ==
'Project [('col * 'col) AS (col * col)#4]
+- LogicalRDD [col#1]
== Analyzed Logical Plan ==
(col * col): decimal(38,12)
Project [CheckOverflow((promote_precision(cast(col#1 as decimal(26,6))) * promote_precision(cast(col#1 as decimal(26,6)))), DecimalType(38,12)) AS (col * col)#4]
+- LogicalRDD [col#1]
== Optimized Logical Plan ==
Project [CheckOverflow((col#1 * col#1), DecimalType(38,12)) AS (col * col)#4]
+- LogicalRDD [col#1]
== Physical Plan ==
*Project [CheckOverflow((col#1 * col#1), DecimalType(38,12)) AS (col * col)#4]
+- Scan ExistingRDD[col#1]
// Schema
root
|-- (col * col): decimal(38,12) (nullable = true)
// Incorrect result with sub-expressions
== Parsed Logical Plan ==
'Project [(('col * 'col) * 'col) AS ((col * col) * col)#11]
+- LogicalRDD [col#1]
== Analyzed Logical Plan ==
((col * col) * col): decimal(38,12)
Project [CheckOverflow((promote_precision(cast(CheckOverflow((promote_precision(cast(col#1 as decimal(26,6))) * promote_precision(cast(col#1 as decimal(26,6)))), DecimalType(38,12)) as decimal(26,6))) * promote_precision(cast(col#1 as decimal(26,6)))), DecimalType(38,12)) AS ((col * col) * col)#11]
+- LogicalRDD [col#1]
== Optimized Logical Plan ==
Project [CheckOverflow((cast(CheckOverflow((col#1 * col#1), DecimalType(38,12)) as decimal(26,6)) * col#1), DecimalType(38,12)) AS ((col * col) * col)#11]
+- LogicalRDD [col#1]
== Physical Plan ==
*Project [CheckOverflow((cast(CheckOverflow((col#1 * col#1), DecimalType(38,12)) as decimal(26,6)) * col#1), DecimalType(38,12)) AS ((col * col) * col)#11]
+- Scan ExistingRDD[col#1]
// Schema
root
|-- ((col * col) * col): decimal(38,12) (nullable = true)
```
## How was this patch tested?
This PR was tested with available unit tests. Moreover, there are tests to cover previously failing scenarios.
Author: aokolnychyi <[email protected]>
Closes apache#18583 from aokolnychyi/spark-21332.
BryanCutler
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 2, 2017
…pressions
## What changes were proposed in this pull request?
This PR changes the direction of expression transformation in the DecimalPrecision rule. Previously, the expressions were transformed down, which led to incorrect result types when decimal expressions had other decimal expressions as their operands. The root cause of this issue was in visiting outer nodes before their children. Consider the example below:
```
val inputSchema = StructType(StructField("col", DecimalType(26, 6)) :: Nil)
val sc = spark.sparkContext
val rdd = sc.parallelize(1 to 2).map(_ => Row(BigDecimal(12)))
val df = spark.createDataFrame(rdd, inputSchema)
// Works correctly since no nested decimal expression is involved
// Expected result type: (26, 6) * (26, 6) = (38, 12)
df.select($"col" * $"col").explain(true)
df.select($"col" * $"col").printSchema()
// Gives a wrong result since there is a nested decimal expression that should be visited first
// Expected result type: ((26, 6) * (26, 6)) * (26, 6) = (38, 12) * (26, 6) = (38, 18)
df.select($"col" * $"col" * $"col").explain(true)
df.select($"col" * $"col" * $"col").printSchema()
```
The example above gives the following output:
```
// Correct result without sub-expressions
== Parsed Logical Plan ==
'Project [('col * 'col) AS (col * col)#4]
+- LogicalRDD [col#1]
== Analyzed Logical Plan ==
(col * col): decimal(38,12)
Project [CheckOverflow((promote_precision(cast(col#1 as decimal(26,6))) * promote_precision(cast(col#1 as decimal(26,6)))), DecimalType(38,12)) AS (col * col)#4]
+- LogicalRDD [col#1]
== Optimized Logical Plan ==
Project [CheckOverflow((col#1 * col#1), DecimalType(38,12)) AS (col * col)#4]
+- LogicalRDD [col#1]
== Physical Plan ==
*Project [CheckOverflow((col#1 * col#1), DecimalType(38,12)) AS (col * col)#4]
+- Scan ExistingRDD[col#1]
// Schema
root
|-- (col * col): decimal(38,12) (nullable = true)
// Incorrect result with sub-expressions
== Parsed Logical Plan ==
'Project [(('col * 'col) * 'col) AS ((col * col) * col)#11]
+- LogicalRDD [col#1]
== Analyzed Logical Plan ==
((col * col) * col): decimal(38,12)
Project [CheckOverflow((promote_precision(cast(CheckOverflow((promote_precision(cast(col#1 as decimal(26,6))) * promote_precision(cast(col#1 as decimal(26,6)))), DecimalType(38,12)) as decimal(26,6))) * promote_precision(cast(col#1 as decimal(26,6)))), DecimalType(38,12)) AS ((col * col) * col)#11]
+- LogicalRDD [col#1]
== Optimized Logical Plan ==
Project [CheckOverflow((cast(CheckOverflow((col#1 * col#1), DecimalType(38,12)) as decimal(26,6)) * col#1), DecimalType(38,12)) AS ((col * col) * col)#11]
+- LogicalRDD [col#1]
== Physical Plan ==
*Project [CheckOverflow((cast(CheckOverflow((col#1 * col#1), DecimalType(38,12)) as decimal(26,6)) * col#1), DecimalType(38,12)) AS ((col * col) * col)#11]
+- Scan ExistingRDD[col#1]
// Schema
root
|-- ((col * col) * col): decimal(38,12) (nullable = true)
```
## How was this patch tested?
This PR was tested with available unit tests. Moreover, there are tests to cover previously failing scenarios.
Author: aokolnychyi <[email protected]>
Closes apache#18583 from aokolnychyi/spark-21332.
(cherry picked from commit 0be5fb4)
Signed-off-by: gatorsmile <[email protected]>
BryanCutler
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 2, 2017
…pressions
## What changes were proposed in this pull request?
This PR changes the direction of expression transformation in the DecimalPrecision rule. Previously, the expressions were transformed down, which led to incorrect result types when decimal expressions had other decimal expressions as their operands. The root cause of this issue was in visiting outer nodes before their children. Consider the example below:
```
val inputSchema = StructType(StructField("col", DecimalType(26, 6)) :: Nil)
val sc = spark.sparkContext
val rdd = sc.parallelize(1 to 2).map(_ => Row(BigDecimal(12)))
val df = spark.createDataFrame(rdd, inputSchema)
// Works correctly since no nested decimal expression is involved
// Expected result type: (26, 6) * (26, 6) = (38, 12)
df.select($"col" * $"col").explain(true)
df.select($"col" * $"col").printSchema()
// Gives a wrong result since there is a nested decimal expression that should be visited first
// Expected result type: ((26, 6) * (26, 6)) * (26, 6) = (38, 12) * (26, 6) = (38, 18)
df.select($"col" * $"col" * $"col").explain(true)
df.select($"col" * $"col" * $"col").printSchema()
```
The example above gives the following output:
```
// Correct result without sub-expressions
== Parsed Logical Plan ==
'Project [('col * 'col) AS (col * col)#4]
+- LogicalRDD [col#1]
== Analyzed Logical Plan ==
(col * col): decimal(38,12)
Project [CheckOverflow((promote_precision(cast(col#1 as decimal(26,6))) * promote_precision(cast(col#1 as decimal(26,6)))), DecimalType(38,12)) AS (col * col)#4]
+- LogicalRDD [col#1]
== Optimized Logical Plan ==
Project [CheckOverflow((col#1 * col#1), DecimalType(38,12)) AS (col * col)#4]
+- LogicalRDD [col#1]
== Physical Plan ==
*Project [CheckOverflow((col#1 * col#1), DecimalType(38,12)) AS (col * col)#4]
+- Scan ExistingRDD[col#1]
// Schema
root
|-- (col * col): decimal(38,12) (nullable = true)
// Incorrect result with sub-expressions
== Parsed Logical Plan ==
'Project [(('col * 'col) * 'col) AS ((col * col) * col)#11]
+- LogicalRDD [col#1]
== Analyzed Logical Plan ==
((col * col) * col): decimal(38,12)
Project [CheckOverflow((promote_precision(cast(CheckOverflow((promote_precision(cast(col#1 as decimal(26,6))) * promote_precision(cast(col#1 as decimal(26,6)))), DecimalType(38,12)) as decimal(26,6))) * promote_precision(cast(col#1 as decimal(26,6)))), DecimalType(38,12)) AS ((col * col) * col)#11]
+- LogicalRDD [col#1]
== Optimized Logical Plan ==
Project [CheckOverflow((cast(CheckOverflow((col#1 * col#1), DecimalType(38,12)) as decimal(26,6)) * col#1), DecimalType(38,12)) AS ((col * col) * col)#11]
+- LogicalRDD [col#1]
== Physical Plan ==
*Project [CheckOverflow((cast(CheckOverflow((col#1 * col#1), DecimalType(38,12)) as decimal(26,6)) * col#1), DecimalType(38,12)) AS ((col * col) * col)#11]
+- Scan ExistingRDD[col#1]
// Schema
root
|-- ((col * col) * col): decimal(38,12) (nullable = true)
```
## How was this patch tested?
This PR was tested with available unit tests. Moreover, there are tests to cover previously failing scenarios.
Author: aokolnychyi <[email protected]>
Closes apache#18583 from aokolnychyi/spark-21332.
(cherry picked from commit 0be5fb4)
Signed-off-by: gatorsmile <[email protected]>
BryanCutler
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 13, 2019
…ver)QueryTestSuite ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This PR adds 2 changes regarding exception handling in `SQLQueryTestSuite` and `ThriftServerQueryTestSuite` - fixes an expected output sorting issue in `ThriftServerQueryTestSuite` as if there is an exception then there is no need for sort - introduces common exception handling in those 2 suites with a new `handleExceptions` method ### Why are the changes needed? Currently `ThriftServerQueryTestSuite` passes on master, but it fails on one of my PRs (apache#23531) with this error (https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/111651/testReport/org.apache.spark.sql.hive.thriftserver/ThriftServerQueryTestSuite/sql_3/): ``` org.scalatest.exceptions.TestFailedException: Expected " [Recursion level limit 100 reached but query has not exhausted, try increasing spark.sql.cte.recursion.level.limit org.apache.spark.SparkException] ", but got " [org.apache.spark.SparkException Recursion level limit 100 reached but query has not exhausted, try increasing spark.sql.cte.recursion.level.limit] " Result did not match for query #4 WITH RECURSIVE r(level) AS ( VALUES (0) UNION ALL SELECT level + 1 FROM r ) SELECT * FROM r ``` The unexpected reversed order of expected output (error message comes first, then the exception class) is due to this line: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/26028/files#diff-b3ea3021602a88056e52bf83d8782de8L146. It should not sort the expected output if there was an error during execution. ### Does this PR introduce any user-facing change? No. ### How was this patch tested? Existing UTs. Closes apache#26028 from peter-toth/SPARK-29359-better-exception-handling. Authored-by: Peter Toth <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Yuming Wang <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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.
I fix some style issues and add a local test of arrow ser/de in spark-side.
The test suite cannot pass for now. It reports the same error as our test on pyspark side. "File too small". Maybe we need better understanding for the arrow format: https://github.com/apache/arrow/tree/master/format