-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 28.9k
[SPARK-10035][SQL] Parquet filters does not process EqualNullSafe filter. #8275
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Please rename maybeAnalyzedPredicate to analyzedPredicates since it's now a Seq[Expression]. Prefix maybe is for Option[T] by convention.
|
ok to test |
|
Test build #41185 has finished for PR 8275 at commit
|
|
Test build #41204 has finished for PR 8275 at commit
|
|
Could you merge this :) ? |
|
Thanks! Merging to master (not to branch-1.5 at this moment since this is a new feature). |
…lter. As I talked with Lian, 1. I added EquelNullSafe to ParquetFilters - It uses the same equality comparison filter with EqualTo since the Parquet filter performs actually null-safe equality comparison. 2. Updated the test code (ParquetFilterSuite) - Convert catalyst.Expression to sources.Filter - Removed Cast since only Literal is picked up as a proper Filter in DataSourceStrategy - Added EquelNullSafe comparison 3. Removed deprecated createFilter for catalyst.Expression Author: hyukjinkwon <[email protected]> Author: 권혁진 <[email protected]> Closes #8275 from HyukjinKwon/master. (cherry picked from commit ba5f7e1) Signed-off-by: Cheng Lian <[email protected]>
|
I backported this PR to branch-1.5 to fix 1.5 Jenkins build failures. Didn't merge this PR to branch-1.5 before because it introduced new feature after branch-1.5 being cut. This PR also refactored This backporting should be safe, since the |
…ilters code Actually this was resolved by #8275. But I found the JIRA issue for this is not marked as resolved since the PR above was made for another issue but the PR above resolved both. I commented that this is resolved by the PR above; however, I opened this PR as I would like to just add a little bit of corrections. In the previous PR, I refactored the test by not reducing just collecting filters; however, this would not test properly `And` filter (which is not given to the tests). I unintentionally changed this from the original way (before being refactored). In this PR, I just followed the original way to collect filters by reducing. I would like to close this if this PR is inappropriate and somebody would like this deal with it in the separate PR related with this. Author: hyukjinkwon <[email protected]> Closes #9554 from HyukjinKwon/SPARK-9557. (cherry picked from commit 9565c24) Signed-off-by: Michael Armbrust <[email protected]>
…ilters code Actually this was resolved by #8275. But I found the JIRA issue for this is not marked as resolved since the PR above was made for another issue but the PR above resolved both. I commented that this is resolved by the PR above; however, I opened this PR as I would like to just add a little bit of corrections. In the previous PR, I refactored the test by not reducing just collecting filters; however, this would not test properly `And` filter (which is not given to the tests). I unintentionally changed this from the original way (before being refactored). In this PR, I just followed the original way to collect filters by reducing. I would like to close this if this PR is inappropriate and somebody would like this deal with it in the separate PR related with this. Author: hyukjinkwon <[email protected]> Closes #9554 from HyukjinKwon/SPARK-9557.
…ilters code Actually this was resolved by apache/spark#8275. But I found the JIRA issue for this is not marked as resolved since the PR above was made for another issue but the PR above resolved both. I commented that this is resolved by the PR above; however, I opened this PR as I would like to just add a little bit of corrections. In the previous PR, I refactored the test by not reducing just collecting filters; however, this would not test properly `And` filter (which is not given to the tests). I unintentionally changed this from the original way (before being refactored). In this PR, I just followed the original way to collect filters by reducing. I would like to close this if this PR is inappropriate and somebody would like this deal with it in the separate PR related with this. Author: hyukjinkwon <[email protected]> Closes #9554 from HyukjinKwon/SPARK-9557.
As I talked with Cheng,