Fix UT failure for https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/24626 #13
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
cloud-fan
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 31, 2022
### What changes were proposed in this pull request? Currently, Spark DS V2 aggregate push-down doesn't supports project with alias. Refer https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/c91c2e9afec0d5d5bbbd2e155057fe409c5bb928/sql/core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/execution/datasources/v2/V2ScanRelationPushDown.scala#L96 This PR let it works good with alias. **The first example:** the origin plan show below: ``` Aggregate [DEPT#0], [DEPT#0, sum(mySalary#8) AS total#14] +- Project [DEPT#0, SALARY#2 AS mySalary#8] +- ScanBuilderHolder [DEPT#0, NAME#1, SALARY#2, BONUS#3], RelationV2[DEPT#0, NAME#1, SALARY#2, BONUS#3] test.employee, JDBCScanBuilder(org.apache.spark.sql.test.TestSparkSession77978658,StructType(StructField(DEPT,IntegerType,true),StructField(NAME,StringType,true),StructField(SALARY,DecimalType(20,2),true),StructField(BONUS,DoubleType,true)),org.apache.spark.sql.execution.datasources.jdbc.JDBCOptions5f8da82) ``` If we can complete push down the aggregate, then the plan will be: ``` Project [DEPT#0, SUM(SALARY)#18 AS sum(SALARY#2)#13 AS total#14] +- RelationV2[DEPT#0, SUM(SALARY)#18] test.employee ``` If we can partial push down the aggregate, then the plan will be: ``` Aggregate [DEPT#0], [DEPT#0, sum(cast(SUM(SALARY)#18 as decimal(20,2))) AS total#14] +- RelationV2[DEPT#0, SUM(SALARY)#18] test.employee ``` **The second example:** the origin plan show below: ``` Aggregate [myDept#33], [myDept#33, sum(mySalary#34) AS total#40] +- Project [DEPT#25 AS myDept#33, SALARY#27 AS mySalary#34] +- ScanBuilderHolder [DEPT#25, NAME#26, SALARY#27, BONUS#28], RelationV2[DEPT#25, NAME#26, SALARY#27, BONUS#28] test.employee, JDBCScanBuilder(org.apache.spark.sql.test.TestSparkSession25c4f621,StructType(StructField(DEPT,IntegerType,true),StructField(NAME,StringType,true),StructField(SALARY,DecimalType(20,2),true),StructField(BONUS,DoubleType,true)),org.apache.spark.sql.execution.datasources.jdbc.JDBCOptions345d641e) ``` If we can complete push down the aggregate, then the plan will be: ``` Project [DEPT#25 AS myDept#33, SUM(SALARY)apache#44 AS sum(SALARY#27)apache#39 AS total#40] +- RelationV2[DEPT#25, SUM(SALARY)apache#44] test.employee ``` If we can partial push down the aggregate, then the plan will be: ``` Aggregate [myDept#33], [DEPT#25 AS myDept#33, sum(cast(SUM(SALARY)apache#56 as decimal(20,2))) AS total#52] +- RelationV2[DEPT#25, SUM(SALARY)apache#56] test.employee ``` ### Why are the changes needed? Alias is more useful. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? 'Yes'. Users could see DS V2 aggregate push-down supports project with alias. ### How was this patch tested? New tests. Closes apache#35932 from beliefer/SPARK-38533_new. Authored-by: Jiaan Geng <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <[email protected]>
cloud-fan
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 13, 2022
### What changes were proposed in this pull request? Currently, Spark DS V2 aggregate push-down doesn't supports project with alias. Refer https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/c91c2e9afec0d5d5bbbd2e155057fe409c5bb928/sql/core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/execution/datasources/v2/V2ScanRelationPushDown.scala#L96 This PR let it works good with alias. **The first example:** the origin plan show below: ``` Aggregate [DEPT#0], [DEPT#0, sum(mySalary#8) AS total#14] +- Project [DEPT#0, SALARY#2 AS mySalary#8] +- ScanBuilderHolder [DEPT#0, NAME#1, SALARY#2, BONUS#3], RelationV2[DEPT#0, NAME#1, SALARY#2, BONUS#3] test.employee, JDBCScanBuilder(org.apache.spark.sql.test.TestSparkSession77978658,StructType(StructField(DEPT,IntegerType,true),StructField(NAME,StringType,true),StructField(SALARY,DecimalType(20,2),true),StructField(BONUS,DoubleType,true)),org.apache.spark.sql.execution.datasources.jdbc.JDBCOptions5f8da82) ``` If we can complete push down the aggregate, then the plan will be: ``` Project [DEPT#0, SUM(SALARY)#18 AS sum(SALARY#2)#13 AS total#14] +- RelationV2[DEPT#0, SUM(SALARY)#18] test.employee ``` If we can partial push down the aggregate, then the plan will be: ``` Aggregate [DEPT#0], [DEPT#0, sum(cast(SUM(SALARY)#18 as decimal(20,2))) AS total#14] +- RelationV2[DEPT#0, SUM(SALARY)#18] test.employee ``` **The second example:** the origin plan show below: ``` Aggregate [myDept#33], [myDept#33, sum(mySalary#34) AS total#40] +- Project [DEPT#25 AS myDept#33, SALARY#27 AS mySalary#34] +- ScanBuilderHolder [DEPT#25, NAME#26, SALARY#27, BONUS#28], RelationV2[DEPT#25, NAME#26, SALARY#27, BONUS#28] test.employee, JDBCScanBuilder(org.apache.spark.sql.test.TestSparkSession25c4f621,StructType(StructField(DEPT,IntegerType,true),StructField(NAME,StringType,true),StructField(SALARY,DecimalType(20,2),true),StructField(BONUS,DoubleType,true)),org.apache.spark.sql.execution.datasources.jdbc.JDBCOptions345d641e) ``` If we can complete push down the aggregate, then the plan will be: ``` Project [DEPT#25 AS myDept#33, SUM(SALARY)apache#44 AS sum(SALARY#27)apache#39 AS total#40] +- RelationV2[DEPT#25, SUM(SALARY)apache#44] test.employee ``` If we can partial push down the aggregate, then the plan will be: ``` Aggregate [myDept#33], [DEPT#25 AS myDept#33, sum(cast(SUM(SALARY)apache#56 as decimal(20,2))) AS total#52] +- RelationV2[DEPT#25, SUM(SALARY)apache#56] test.employee ``` ### Why are the changes needed? Alias is more useful. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? 'Yes'. Users could see DS V2 aggregate push-down supports project with alias. ### How was this patch tested? New tests. Closes apache#35932 from beliefer/SPARK-38533_new. Authored-by: Jiaan Geng <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit f327dad) Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <[email protected]>
cloud-fan
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 29, 2025
…ingBuilder` ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This PR aims to improve `toString` by `JEP-280` instead of `ToStringBuilder`. In addition, `Scalastyle` and `Checkstyle` rules are added to prevent a future regression. ### Why are the changes needed? Since Java 9, `String Concatenation` has been handled better by default. | ID | DESCRIPTION | | - | - | | JEP-280 | [Indify String Concatenation](https://openjdk.org/jeps/280) | For example, this PR improves `OpenBlocks` like the following. Both Java source code and byte code are simplified a lot by utilizing JEP-280 properly. **CODE CHANGE** ```java - return new ToStringBuilder(this, ToStringStyle.SHORT_PREFIX_STYLE) - .append("appId", appId) - .append("execId", execId) - .append("blockIds", Arrays.toString(blockIds)) - .toString(); + return "OpenBlocks[appId=" + appId + ",execId=" + execId + ",blockIds=" + + Arrays.toString(blockIds) + "]"; ``` **BEFORE** ``` public java.lang.String toString(); Code: 0: new apache#39 // class org/apache/commons/lang3/builder/ToStringBuilder 3: dup 4: aload_0 5: getstatic apache#41 // Field org/apache/commons/lang3/builder/ToStringStyle.SHORT_PREFIX_STYLE:Lorg/apache/commons/lang3/builder/ToStringStyle; 8: invokespecial apache#47 // Method org/apache/commons/lang3/builder/ToStringBuilder."<init>":(Ljava/lang/Object;Lorg/apache/commons/lang3/builder/ToStringStyle;)V 11: ldc apache#50 // String appId 13: aload_0 14: getfield #7 // Field appId:Ljava/lang/String; 17: invokevirtual apache#51 // Method org/apache/commons/lang3/builder/ToStringBuilder.append:(Ljava/lang/String;Ljava/lang/Object;)Lorg/apache/commons/lang3/builder/ToStringBuilder; 20: ldc apache#55 // String execId 22: aload_0 23: getfield #13 // Field execId:Ljava/lang/String; 26: invokevirtual apache#51 // Method org/apache/commons/lang3/builder/ToStringBuilder.append:(Ljava/lang/String;Ljava/lang/Object;)Lorg/apache/commons/lang3/builder/ToStringBuilder; 29: ldc apache#56 // String blockIds 31: aload_0 32: getfield #16 // Field blockIds:[Ljava/lang/String; 35: invokestatic apache#57 // Method java/util/Arrays.toString:([Ljava/lang/Object;)Ljava/lang/String; 38: invokevirtual apache#51 // Method org/apache/commons/lang3/builder/ToStringBuilder.append:(Ljava/lang/String;Ljava/lang/Object;)Lorg/apache/commons/lang3/builder/ToStringBuilder; 41: invokevirtual apache#61 // Method org/apache/commons/lang3/builder/ToStringBuilder.toString:()Ljava/lang/String; 44: areturn ``` **AFTER** ``` public java.lang.String toString(); Code: 0: aload_0 1: getfield #7 // Field appId:Ljava/lang/String; 4: aload_0 5: getfield #13 // Field execId:Ljava/lang/String; 8: aload_0 9: getfield #16 // Field blockIds:[Ljava/lang/String; 12: invokestatic apache#39 // Method java/util/Arrays.toString:([Ljava/lang/Object;)Ljava/lang/String; 15: invokedynamic apache#43, 0 // InvokeDynamic #0:makeConcatWithConstants:(Ljava/lang/String;Ljava/lang/String;Ljava/lang/String;)Ljava/lang/String; 20: areturn ``` ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No. This is an `toString` implementation improvement. ### How was this patch tested? Pass the CIs. ### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? No. Closes apache#51572 from dongjoon-hyun/SPARK-52880. Authored-by: Dongjoon Hyun <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <[email protected]>
cloud-fan
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 19, 2025
…onicalized expressions
### What changes were proposed in this pull request?
Make PullOutNonDeterministic use canonicalized expressions to dedup group and aggregate expressions. This affects pyspark udfs in particular. Example:
```
from pyspark.sql.functions import col, avg, udf
pythonUDF = udf(lambda x: x).asNondeterministic()
spark.range(10)\
.selectExpr("id", "id % 3 as value")\
.groupBy(pythonUDF(col("value")))\
.agg(avg("id"), pythonUDF(col("value")))\
.explain(extended=True)
```
Currently results in a plan like this:
```
Aggregate [_nondeterministic#15](#15), [_nondeterministic#15 AS dummyNondeterministicUDF(value)#12, avg(id#0L) AS avg(id)#13, dummyNondeterministicUDF(value#6L)#8 AS dummyNondeterministicUDF(value)#14](#15%20AS%20dummyNondeterministicUDF(value)#12,%20avg(id#0L)%20AS%20avg(id)#13,%20dummyNondeterministicUDF(value#6L)#8%20AS%20dummyNondeterministicUDF(value)#14)
+- Project [id#0L, value#6L, dummyNondeterministicUDF(value#6L)#7 AS _nondeterministic#15](#0L,%20value#6L,%20dummyNondeterministicUDF(value#6L)#7%20AS%20_nondeterministic#15)
+- Project [id#0L, (id#0L % cast(3 as bigint)) AS value#6L](#0L,%20(id#0L%20%%20cast(3%20as%20bigint))%20AS%20value#6L)
+- Range (0, 10, step=1, splits=Some(2))
```
and then it throws:
```
[[MISSING_AGGREGATION] The non-aggregating expression "value" is based on columns which are not participating in the GROUP BY clause. Add the columns or the expression to the GROUP BY, aggregate the expression, or use "any_value(value)" if you do not care which of the values within a group is returned. SQLSTATE: 42803
```
- how canonicalized fixes this:
- nondeterministic PythonUDF expressions always have distinct resultIds per udf
- The fix is to canonicalize the expressions when matching. Canonicalized means that we're setting the resultIds to -1, allowing us to dedup the PythonUDF expressions.
- for deterministic UDFs, this rule does not apply and "Post Analysis" batch extracts and deduplicates the expressions, as expected
### Why are the changes needed?
- the output of the query with the fix applied still makes sense - the nondeterministic UDF is invoked only once, in the project.
### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change?
Yes, it's additive, it enables queries to run that previously threw errors.
### How was this patch tested?
- added unit test
### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
No
Closes apache#52061 from benrobby/adhoc-fix-pull-out-nondeterministic.
Authored-by: Ben Hurdelhey <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <[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.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
Fix failed unit test in apache#24626
How was this patch tested?
Existing test