[SPARK-9489] Remove unnecessary compatibility and requirements checks from Exchange #7807
+17
−94
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
…rt checks from Exchange
Contributor
Author
|
/cc @marmbrus for review. |
|
Test build #39110 has finished for PR 7807 at commit
|
Contributor
|
LGTM |
Contributor
Author
|
Thanks. I'm going to merge this into master then will rebase the other commit. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
While reviewing @yhuai's patch for SPARK-2205 (#7773), I noticed that Exchange's
compatiblecheck may be incorrectly returningfalsein many cases. As far as I know, this is not actually a problem because thecompatible,meetsRequirements, andneedsAnySortchecks are serving only as short-circuit performance optimizations that are not necessary for correctness.In order to reduce code complexity, I think that we should remove these checks and unconditionally rewrite the operator's children. This should be safe because we rewrite the tree in a single bottom-up pass.