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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Branch 2.3 #21726
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
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Branch 2.3 #21726
Changes from 1 commit
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 filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Jump to
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
## What changes were proposed in this pull request? We should provide customized canonicalize plan for `InMemoryRelation` and `InMemoryTableScanExec`. Otherwise, we can wrongly treat two different cached plans as same result. It causes wrongly reused exchange then. For a test query like this: ```scala val cached = spark.createDataset(Seq(TestDataUnion(1, 2, 3), TestDataUnion(4, 5, 6))).cache() val group1 = cached.groupBy("x").agg(min(col("y")) as "value") val group2 = cached.groupBy("x").agg(min(col("z")) as "value") group1.union(group2) ``` Canonicalized plans before: First exchange: ``` Exchange hashpartitioning(none#0, 5) +- *(1) HashAggregate(keys=[none#0], functions=[partial_min(none#1)], output=[none#0, none#4]) +- *(1) InMemoryTableScan [none#0, none#1] +- InMemoryRelation [x#4253, y#4254, z#4255], true, 10000, StorageLevel(disk, memory, deserialized, 1 replicas) +- LocalTableScan [x#4253, y#4254, z#4255] ``` Second exchange: ``` Exchange hashpartitioning(none#0, 5) +- *(3) HashAggregate(keys=[none#0], functions=[partial_min(none#1)], output=[none#0, none#4]) +- *(3) InMemoryTableScan [none#0, none#1] +- InMemoryRelation [x#4253, y#4254, z#4255], true, 10000, StorageLevel(disk, memory, deserialized, 1 replicas) +- LocalTableScan [x#4253, y#4254, z#4255] ``` You can find that they have the canonicalized plans are the same, although we use different columns in two `InMemoryTableScan`s. Canonicalized plan after: First exchange: ``` Exchange hashpartitioning(none#0, 5) +- *(1) HashAggregate(keys=[none#0], functions=[partial_min(none#1)], output=[none#0, none#4]) +- *(1) InMemoryTableScan [none#0, none#1] +- InMemoryRelation [none#0, none#1, none#2], true, 10000, StorageLevel(memory, 1 replicas) +- LocalTableScan [none#0, none#1, none#2] ``` Second exchange: ``` Exchange hashpartitioning(none#0, 5) +- *(3) HashAggregate(keys=[none#0], functions=[partial_min(none#1)], output=[none#0, none#4]) +- *(3) InMemoryTableScan [none#0, none#2] +- InMemoryRelation [none#0, none#1, none#2], true, 10000, StorageLevel(memory, 1 replicas) +- LocalTableScan [none#0, none#1, none#2] ``` ## How was this patch tested? Added unit test. Author: Liang-Chi Hsieh <[email protected]> Closes #20831 from viirya/SPARK-23614. (cherry picked from commit b2edc30) Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <[email protected]>Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There are no files selected for viewing