-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29k
[SPARK-13484] [SQL] Prevent illegal NULL propagation when filtering outer-join results #13290
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
10 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
2dcecc8
Avoid illegal NULL propagation
maropu 1ebfa80
Add comments
maropu ab5d4f1
Add a new rule to solve illegal references
maropu 8850cb3
Use foreach not map
maropu b636b34
Solve illegal references in Projects
maropu dfd9528
Add tests in DataFrameJoinSuite
maropu 78ed4ef
Fix test codes in ResolveNaturalJoinSuite
maropu fff3382
Try to have a rule to fix nullability
yhuai 127024d
update
yhuai 071b670
update
yhuai 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
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -113,6 +113,8 @@ class Analyzer( | |
| PullOutNondeterministic), | ||
| Batch("UDF", Once, | ||
| HandleNullInputsForUDF), | ||
| Batch("FixNullability", Once, | ||
| FixNullability), | ||
| Batch("Cleanup", fixedPoint, | ||
| CleanupAliases) | ||
| ) | ||
|
|
@@ -1447,6 +1449,40 @@ class Analyzer( | |
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| /** | ||
| * Fixes nullability of Attributes in a resolved LogicalPlan by using the nullability of | ||
| * corresponding Attributes of its children output Attributes. This step is needed because | ||
| * users can use a resolved AttributeReference in the Dataset API and outer joins | ||
| * can change the nullability of an AttribtueReference. Without the fix, a nullable column's | ||
| * nullable field can be actually set as non-nullable, which cause illegal optimization | ||
| * (e.g., NULL propagation) and wrong answers. | ||
| * See SPARK-13484 and SPARK-13801 for the concrete queries of this case. | ||
| */ | ||
| object FixNullability extends Rule[LogicalPlan] { | ||
|
|
||
| def apply(plan: LogicalPlan): LogicalPlan = plan transformUp { | ||
| case p if !p.resolved => p // Skip unresolved nodes. | ||
| case p: LogicalPlan if p.resolved => | ||
| val childrenOutput = p.children.flatMap(c => c.output).groupBy(_.exprId).flatMap { | ||
| case (exprId, attributes) => | ||
| // If there are multiple Attributes having the same ExprId, we need to resolve | ||
| // the conflict of nullable field. We do not really expect this happen. | ||
| val nullable = attributes.exists(_.nullable) | ||
| attributes.map(attr => attr.withNullability(nullable)) | ||
| }.toSeq | ||
| // At here, we create an AttributeMap that only compare the exprId for the lookup | ||
| // operation. So, we can find the corresponding input attribute's nullability. | ||
| val attributeMap = AttributeMap[Attribute](childrenOutput.map(attr => attr -> attr)) | ||
| // For an Attribute used by the current LogicalPlan, if it is from its children, | ||
| // we fix the nullable field by using the nullability setting of the corresponding | ||
| // output Attribute from the children. | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Maybe also explain that |
||
| p.transformExpressions { | ||
| case attr: Attribute if attributeMap.contains(attr) => | ||
| attr.withNullability(attributeMap(attr).nullable) | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| /** | ||
| * Extracts [[WindowExpression]]s from the projectList of a [[Project]] operator and | ||
| * aggregateExpressions of an [[Aggregate]] operator and creates individual [[Window]] | ||
|
|
@@ -2127,4 +2163,3 @@ object TimeWindowing extends Rule[LogicalPlan] { | |
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
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.
When will this happen?
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 think with our current implementation, it will not happen.
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.
Then should we just put an
assert/requirehere?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.
+1
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 am not sure we should add assert. Even when we hit that case, it is still fine to pass at here, right?