-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29k
[SPARK-17981] [SPARK-17957] [SQL] Fix Incorrect Nullability Setting to False in FilterExec #15523
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
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
54c3cc8
fix
gatorsmile ce418f9
add more test cases
gatorsmile 52cb8fb
change the parm name to expectedNonNullableColumns
gatorsmile c25df4d
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into NoPPDIsNotNull
gatorsmile 4f2101e
merge
gatorsmile 49daace
update the comment
gatorsmile 2364cc2
address comments.
gatorsmile File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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.
This should not work in current approach. It works now because we infer redundant IsNotNull constraints. E.g., if Filter has a constraint IsNotNull(_2 + Rand()), we will infer another IsNotNull(_2) from it. Your approach is working on IsNotNull(_2) to decide _2 is non-nullable column, not IsNotNull(_2 + Rand()).
I submitted another PR #15653 for redundant IsNotNull constraints. But I am not sure if we want to fix it since it doesn't affect correctness. I left that to @cloud-fan or @hvanhovell to decide it.
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.
I already explained why my current solution works in my previous statement. Personally, I like simple code, which is easy to understand and maintain, especially when it can cover all the cases. Result correctness and code maintainability are alwasy more important.
If
constructIsNotNullConstraintsis changed by somebody else (i.e., it does not provide the expectedIsNotNullconstraints), the test cases added by this PR will fail. Then, we can modify the codes.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.
Yeah, so I said I will left that to @cloud-fan or others to decide...
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.
I agree with the simplicity argument but can you please add a comment here explaining why this particular case is working due to the null inference rule?