Fix optimize projections bug #8960
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
github-actions
bot
added
optimizer
mustafasrepo
commented
Jan 23, 2024
| --------------WindowAggr: windowExpr=[[SUM(CAST(annotated_data_infinite2.c AS Int64)annotated_data_infinite2.c AS annotated_data_infinite2.c) PARTITION BY [annotated_data_infinite2.a, annotated_data_infinite2.b] ORDER BY [annotated_data_infinite2.c ASC NULLS LAST] ROWS BETWEEN 2 PRECEDING AND 1 FOLLOWING, SUM(CAST(annotated_data_infinite2.c AS Int64)annotated_data_infinite2.c AS annotated_data_infinite2.c) PARTITION BY [annotated_data_infinite2.a, annotated_data_infinite2.b] ORDER BY [annotated_data_infinite2.c ASC NULLS LAST] ROWS BETWEEN 5 PRECEDING AND 5 FOLLOWING]] | ||
| ----------------Projection: CAST(annotated_data_infinite2.c AS Int64) AS CAST(annotated_data_infinite2.c AS Int64)annotated_data_infinite2.c, annotated_data_infinite2.a, annotated_data_infinite2.b, annotated_data_infinite2.c, annotated_data_infinite2.d | ||
| ------------------TableScan: annotated_data_infinite2 projection=[a, b, c, d] | ||
| ------Projection: CAST(annotated_data_infinite2.c AS Int64) AS CAST(annotated_data_infinite2.c AS Int64)annotated_data_infinite2.c, annotated_data_infinite2.a, annotated_data_infinite2.b, annotated_data_infinite2.c, annotated_data_infinite2.d, SUM(annotated_data_infinite2.c) PARTITION BY [annotated_data_infinite2.a, annotated_data_infinite2.b] ORDER BY [annotated_data_infinite2.c ASC NULLS LAST] ROWS BETWEEN 2 PRECEDING AND 1 FOLLOWING, SUM(annotated_data_infinite2.c) PARTITION BY [annotated_data_infinite2.a, annotated_data_infinite2.b] ORDER BY [annotated_data_infinite2.c ASC NULLS LAST] ROWS BETWEEN 5 PRECEDING AND 5 FOLLOWING, SUM(annotated_data_infinite2.c) PARTITION BY [annotated_data_infinite2.a, annotated_data_infinite2.b, annotated_data_infinite2.d] ORDER BY [annotated_data_infinite2.c ASC NULLS LAST] ROWS BETWEEN 2 PRECEDING AND 1 FOLLOWING, SUM(annotated_data_infinite2.c) PARTITION BY [annotated_data_infinite2.a, annotated_data_infinite2.b, annotated_data_infinite2.d] ORDER BY [annotated_data_infinite2.c ASC NULLS LAST] ROWS BETWEEN 5 PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW, SUM(annotated_data_infinite2.c) PARTITION BY [annotated_data_infinite2.a, annotated_data_infinite2.d] ORDER BY [annotated_data_infinite2.b ASC NULLS LAST, annotated_data_infinite2.c ASC NULLS LAST] ROWS BETWEEN 2 PRECEDING AND 1 FOLLOWING, SUM(annotated_data_infinite2.c) PARTITION BY [annotated_data_infinite2.a, annotated_data_infinite2.d] ORDER BY [annotated_data_infinite2.b ASC NULLS LAST, annotated_data_infinite2.c ASC NULLS LAST] ROWS BETWEEN 1 FOLLOWING AND 5 FOLLOWING, SUM(annotated_data_infinite2.c) PARTITION BY [annotated_data_infinite2.b, annotated_data_infinite2.a] ORDER BY [annotated_data_infinite2.c ASC NULLS LAST] ROWS BETWEEN 2 PRECEDING AND 1 FOLLOWING, SUM(annotated_data_infinite2.c) PARTITION BY [annotated_data_infinite2.b, annotated_data_infinite2.a] ORDER BY [annotated_data_infinite2.c ASC NULLS LAST] ROWS BETWEEN 5 PRECEDING AND 5 FOLLOWING, SUM(annotated_data_infinite2.c) PARTITION BY [annotated_data_infinite2.b, annotated_data_infinite2.a, annotated_data_infinite2.d] ORDER BY [annotated_data_infinite2.c ASC NULLS LAST] ROWS BETWEEN 2 PRECEDING AND 1 FOLLOWING, SUM(annotated_data_infinite2.c) PARTITION BY [annotated_data_infinite2.b, annotated_data_infinite2.a, annotated_data_infinite2.d] ORDER BY [annotated_data_infinite2.c ASC NULLS LAST] ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND 1 FOLLOWING |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In these tests, there is additional Projections with Cast exprs
This was referenced Jan 24, 2024
alamb
approved these changes
Jan 24, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you @mustafasrepo -- this makes sense to me. Maybe @sergiimk / @gruuya have some time to review as well
I think it might be valuable to add the tests case from @sergiimk that verifies the actual values from #8942 (comment) as part of the dataframe tests as well
I can do so as well as a follow on PR if you prefer.
gruuya
approved these changes
Jan 24, 2024
sergiimk
approved these changes
Jan 24, 2024
I have added test in the issue as dataframe test |
|
Thanks everyone |
joroKr21
reviewed
Jan 30, 2024
Comment on lines
+870
to
+871
| if &projection_schema(&input, &exprs_used)? == input.schema() | ||
| && exprs_used.iter().all(is_expr_trivial) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A few lines below (882) we have the same check
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Which issue does this PR close?
Closes #8942.
Rationale for this change
See issue.
What changes are included in this PR?
Note: This PR is an implementation of @gruuya's suggestion in discussion, with his test in the PR.
Currently projections are not inserted to logical plan, if its input schema and its schema are same. However, this equality is not a sufficient condition. See #8942 for an example how can this assumption be a problem. On top of that condition, we need to make sure that projection is trivial (e.g it just emits its input). Then we can deem Projection unnecessary.
However, adding
.iter().all(is_trivial)check inserts additionalProjectionExecs to the plan for 2 test cases as observed by @gruuya. Even if these test plans retract, I think we should do this change. Because removingProjectionin those plan overfits the name being same after casting (this assumption is not safe).I think, what we should really do for those queries is rewriting window expression so that they no longer contain CAST expr after once their input have casted result. I think that is the concern of another PR.
@gruuya suggested PR for fixing this issue without retracting these window tests. However, I think that PR solves the problem only for consecutive projections. Hence even if 2 tests regresses we should continue with these changes
Are these changes tested?
Yes
Are there any user-facing changes?