You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
perf: Fix NLJ slow join with condition array_has (apache#18161)
## Which issue does this PR close?
<!--
We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and
enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases.
You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example
`Closes#123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123.
-->
- Closesapache#18070
## Rationale for this change
<!--
Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly
in the issue then this section is not needed.
Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand
your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes.
-->
See the above issue and its comment
apache#18070 (comment)
## What changes are included in this PR?
<!--
There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it
is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this
PR.
-->
In nested loop join, when the join column includes `List(Utf8View)`, use
`take()` instead of `to_array_of_size()` to avoid deep copying the utf8
buffers inside `Utf8View` array.
This is the quick fix, avoiding deep copy inside `to_array_of_size()` is
a bit tricky.
Here is `ListArray`'s physical layout:
https://arrow.apache.org/rust/arrow/array/struct.GenericListArray.html
If multiple elements is pointing to the same list range, the underlying
payload can't be reused.So the potential fix in `to_array_of_size` can
only avoids copying the inner-inner utf8view array buffers, but can't
avoid copying the inner array (i.e. views are still copied), and deep
copying for other primitive types also can't be avoided. Seems this can
be better solved when `ListView` type is ready 🤔
### Benchmark
I tried query 1 in apache#18070,
but only used 3 randomly sampled `places` parquet file.
49.0.0: 4s
50.0.0: stuck > 1 minute
PR: 4s
Now the performance are similar, I suspect the most time is spend
evaluating the expensive `array_has` so the optimization in
apache#16996 can't help much.
## Are these changes tested?
<!--
We typically require tests for all PRs in order to:
1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes
2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code
If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example,
are they covered by existing tests)?
-->
Existing tests
## Are there any user-facing changes?
<!--
If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be
updated before approving the PR.
-->
No
<!--
If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api
change` label.
-->
---------
Co-authored-by: Andrew Lamb <andrew@nerdnetworks.org>
0 commit comments