sync unregister app #3
Closed
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
Ngone51
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 11, 2020
### What changes were proposed in this pull request?
This PR proposes to make `PythonFunction` holds `Seq[Byte]` instead of `Array[Byte]` to be able to compare if the byte array has the same values for the cache manager.
### Why are the changes needed?
Currently the cache manager doesn't use the cache for `udf` if the `udf` is created again even if the functions is the same.
```py
>>> func = lambda x: x
>>> df = spark.range(1)
>>> df.select(udf(func)("id")).cache()
```
```py
>>> df.select(udf(func)("id")).explain()
== Physical Plan ==
*(2) Project [pythonUDF0#14 AS <lambda>(id)apache#12]
+- BatchEvalPython [<lambda>(id#0L)], [pythonUDF0#14]
+- *(1) Range (0, 1, step=1, splits=12)
```
This is because `PythonFunction` holds `Array[Byte]`, and `equals` method of array equals only when the both array is the same instance.
### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change?
Yes, if the user reuse the Python function for the UDF, the cache manager will detect the same function and use the cache for it.
### How was this patch tested?
I added a test case and manually.
```py
>>> df.select(udf(func)("id")).explain()
== Physical Plan ==
InMemoryTableScan [<lambda>(id)apache#12]
+- InMemoryRelation [<lambda>(id)apache#12], StorageLevel(disk, memory, deserialized, 1 replicas)
+- *(2) Project [pythonUDF0#5 AS <lambda>(id)#3]
+- BatchEvalPython [<lambda>(id#0L)], [pythonUDF0#5]
+- *(1) Range (0, 1, step=1, splits=12)
```
Closes apache#28774 from ueshin/issues/SPARK-31945/udf_cache.
Authored-by: Takuya UESHIN <ueshin@databricks.com>
Signed-off-by: HyukjinKwon <gurwls223@apache.org>
Ngone51
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 9, 2020
… without WindowExpression
### What changes were proposed in this pull request?
Add WindowFunction check at `CheckAnalysis`.
### Why are the changes needed?
Provide friendly error msg.
**BEFORE**
```scala
scala> sql("select rank() from values(1)").show
java.lang.UnsupportedOperationException: Cannot generate code for expression: rank()
```
**AFTER**
```scala
scala> sql("select rank() from values(1)").show
org.apache.spark.sql.AnalysisException: Window function rank() requires an OVER clause.;;
Project [rank() AS RANK()#3]
+- LocalRelation [col1#2]
```
### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change?
Yes, user wiill be given a better error msg.
### How was this patch tested?
Pass the newly added UT.
Closes apache#28808 from ulysses-you/SPARK-31975.
Authored-by: ulysses <youxiduo@weidian.com>
Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com>
Ngone51
force-pushed
the
fix-spark-31922
branch
2 times, most recently
from
1c5e441 to
4c8ceec
Compare
|
We're closing this PR because it hasn't been updated in a while. This isn't a judgement on the merit of the PR in any way. It's just a way of keeping the PR queue manageable. |
Ngone51
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 2, 2022
…ly equivalent children in `RewriteDistinctAggregates` ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? In `RewriteDistinctAggregates`, when grouping aggregate expressions by function children, treat children that are semantically equivalent as the same. ### Why are the changes needed? This PR will reduce the number of projections in the Expand operator when there are multiple distinct aggregations with superficially different children. In some cases, it will eliminate the need for an Expand operator. Example: In the following query, the Expand operator creates 3\*n rows (where n is the number of incoming rows) because it has a projection for each of function children `b + 1`, `1 + b` and `c`. ``` create or replace temp view v1 as select * from values (1, 2, 3.0), (1, 3, 4.0), (2, 4, 2.5), (2, 3, 1.0) v1(a, b, c); select a, count(distinct b + 1), avg(distinct 1 + b) filter (where c > 0), sum(c) from v1 group by a; ``` The Expand operator has three projections (each producing a row for each incoming row): ``` [a#87, null, null, 0, null, UnscaledValue(c#89)], <== projection #1 (for regular aggregation) [a#87, (b#88 + 1), null, 1, null, null], <== projection #2 (for distinct aggregation of b + 1) [a#87, null, (1 + b#88), 2, (c#89 > 0.0), null]], <== projection #3 (for distinct aggregation of 1 + b) ``` In reality, the Expand only needs one projection for `1 + b` and `b + 1`, because they are semantically equivalent. With the proposed change, the Expand operator's projections look like this: ``` [a#67, null, 0, null, UnscaledValue(c#69)], <== projection #1 (for regular aggregations) [a#67, (b#68 + 1), 1, (c#69 > 0.0), null]], <== projection #2 (for distinct aggregation on b + 1 and 1 + b) ``` With one less projection, Expand produces 2\*n rows instead of 3\*n rows, but still produces the correct result. In the case where all distinct aggregates have semantically equivalent children, the Expand operator is not needed at all. Benchmark code in the JIRA (SPARK-40382). Before the PR: ``` distinct aggregates: Best Time(ms) Avg Time(ms) Stdev(ms) Rate(M/s) Per Row(ns) Relative ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ all semantically equivalent 14721 14859 195 5.7 175.5 1.0X some semantically equivalent 14569 14572 5 5.8 173.7 1.0X none semantically equivalent 14408 14488 113 5.8 171.8 1.0X ``` After the PR: ``` distinct aggregates: Best Time(ms) Avg Time(ms) Stdev(ms) Rate(M/s) Per Row(ns) Relative ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ all semantically equivalent 3658 3692 49 22.9 43.6 1.0X some semantically equivalent 9124 9214 127 9.2 108.8 0.4X none semantically equivalent 14601 14777 250 5.7 174.1 0.3X ``` ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No. ### How was this patch tested? New unit tests. Closes apache#37825 from bersprockets/rewritedistinct_issue. Authored-by: Bruce Robbins <bersprockets@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com>
Ngone51
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 12, 2023
…edExpression() ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? In `EquivalentExpressions.addExpr()`, add a guard `supportedExpression()` to make it consistent with `addExprTree()` and `getExprState()`. ### Why are the changes needed? This fixes a regression caused by apache#39010 which added the `supportedExpression()` to `addExprTree()` and `getExprState()` but not `addExpr()`. One example of a use case affected by the inconsistency is the `PhysicalAggregation` pattern in physical planning. There, it calls `addExpr()` to deduplicate the aggregate expressions, and then calls `getExprState()` to deduplicate the result expressions. Guarding inconsistently will cause the aggregate and result expressions go out of sync, eventually resulting in query execution error (or whole-stage codegen error). ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? This fixes a regression affecting Spark 3.3.2+, where it may manifest as an error running aggregate operators with higher-order functions. Example running the SQL command: ```sql select max(transform(array(id), x -> x)), max(transform(array(id), x -> x)) from range(2) ``` example error message before the fix: ``` java.lang.IllegalStateException: Couldn't find max(transform(array(id#0L), lambdafunction(lambda x#2L, lambda x#2L, false)))#4 in [max(transform(array(id#0L), lambdafunction(lambda x#1L, lambda x#1L, false)))#3] ``` after the fix this error is gone. ### How was this patch tested? Added new test cases to `SubexpressionEliminationSuite` for the immediate issue, and to `DataFrameAggregateSuite` for an example of user-visible symptom. Closes apache#40473 from rednaxelafx/spark-42851. Authored-by: Kris Mok <kris.mok@databricks.com> Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com>
Ngone51
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 15, 2024
…edExpression() ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? In `EquivalentExpressions.addExpr()`, add a guard `supportedExpression()` to make it consistent with `addExprTree()` and `getExprState()`. ### Why are the changes needed? This fixes a regression caused by apache#39010 which added the `supportedExpression()` to `addExprTree()` and `getExprState()` but not `addExpr()`. One example of a use case affected by the inconsistency is the `PhysicalAggregation` pattern in physical planning. There, it calls `addExpr()` to deduplicate the aggregate expressions, and then calls `getExprState()` to deduplicate the result expressions. Guarding inconsistently will cause the aggregate and result expressions go out of sync, eventually resulting in query execution error (or whole-stage codegen error). ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? This fixes a regression affecting Spark 3.3.2+, where it may manifest as an error running aggregate operators with higher-order functions. Example running the SQL command: ```sql select max(transform(array(id), x -> x)), max(transform(array(id), x -> x)) from range(2) ``` example error message before the fix: ``` java.lang.IllegalStateException: Couldn't find max(transform(array(id#0L), lambdafunction(lambda x#2L, lambda x#2L, false)))#4 in [max(transform(array(id#0L), lambdafunction(lambda x#1L, lambda x#1L, false)))#3] ``` after the fix this error is gone. ### How was this patch tested? Added new test cases to `SubexpressionEliminationSuite` for the immediate issue, and to `DataFrameAggregateSuite` for an example of user-visible symptom. Closes apache#40473 from rednaxelafx/spark-42851. Authored-by: Kris Mok <kris.mok@databricks.com> Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com> (cherry picked from commit ef0a76e) Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com>
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.
No description provided.