Possible native shuffle optimization

[andygrove]

What is the problem the feature request solves?

I noticed that we execute each query stage with two separate native plans.

For example, here is the first query stage for TPC-H q1:

+- CometExchange: Hash partitioning on [l_returnflag, l_linestatus]
   +- CometHashAggregate (Partial): keys = [l_returnflag, l_linestatus]
      +- CometProject
         +- CometFilter: l_shipdate NOT NULL AND l_shipdate <= 1998-09-24
            +- CometScan: lineitem.parquet

We execute one plan for the aggregate:

AggregateExec: mode=Partial, gby=[col_4@4 as col_0, col_5@5 as col_1], aggr=[sum, sum, sum, sum, avg, avg, avg, count]
  ProjectionExec: expr=[col_0@0 as col_0, col_1@1 as col_1, col_2@2 as col_2, col_3@3 as col_3, col_4@4 as col_4, col_5@5 as col_5]
    FilterExec: col_6@6 IS NOT NULL AND col_6@6 <= 1998-09-24
      ScanExec: source=[CometScan parquet  (unknown)]

We then stream those results back into the JVM and then stream them back out to the following native plan to perform the shuffle write:

ShuffleWriterExec: partitioning=Hash([Column { name: "col_0", index: 0 }, Column { name: "col_1", index: 1 }], 200)
  ScanExec: source=[], schema=[col_0: Utf8, col_1: Utf8, ..]

Would it be possible to combine these so that we just have the following plan? This would avoid a lot of JNI back and forth between the aggregate and the shuffle write.

ShuffleWriterExec: partitioning=Hash([Column { name: "col_0", index: 0 }, Column { name: "col_1", index: 1 }], 200)
  AggregateExec: mode=Partial, gby=[col_4@4 as col_0, col_5@5 as col_1], aggr=[sum, sum, sum, sum, avg, avg, avg, count]
    ProjectionExec: expr=[col_0@0 as col_0, col_1@1 as col_1, col_2@2 as col_2, col_3@3 as col_3, col_4@4 as col_4, col_5@5 as col_5]
      FilterExec: col_6@6 IS NOT NULL AND col_6@6 <= 1998-09-24
        ScanExec: source=[CometScan parquet  (unknown)]

Describe the potential solution

No response

Additional context

No response

[viirya]

Shuffle is not a SQL operator like Project or Filter in Spark. It is not specified to Spark SQL but also a fundamental block in Spark distributed execution model. Spark has its designed mechanisms for shuffle. It is out of the range of Spark SQL. That's said, it is no way to simply add other SQL operator as a child node to ShuffleWriterExec and expect they are executed as a stream.

[andygrove]

I have been learning more about Spark shuffle and now understand why this issue does not make sense.

edit: I thought I understood this, but now I am not so sure, so will take another look and at least document why we can't do this before closing this issue