Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

DRAFT search hit - type _doc #11

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

DRAFT search hit - type _doc #11

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

pgomulka
Copy link
Owner

@pgomulka pgomulka commented Dec 2, 2019

  • Have you signed the contributor license agreement?
  • Have you followed the contributor guidelines?
  • If submitting code, have you built your formula locally prior to submission with gradle check?
  • If submitting code, is your pull request against master? Unless there is a good reason otherwise, we prefer pull requests against master and will backport as needed.
  • If submitting code, have you checked that your submission is for an OS and architecture that we support?
  • If you are submitting this code for a class then read our policy for that.

pgomulka pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 6, 2023
@luigidellaquila
Fix Project after TopN (ESQL-541)
f5d2ca2 
Fixes elastic/elasticsearch-internal#497
Fixes ESQL-560

A query like `from test | sort data | limit 2 | project count` fails
because `LocalToGlobalLimitAndTopNExec` planning rule adds a collecting
`TopNExec` after last GATHER exchange, to perform last reduce, see

```
TopNExec[[Order[data{f}#6,ASC,LAST]],2[INTEGER]]
\_ExchangeExec[GATHER,SINGLE_DISTRIBUTION]
  \_ProjectExec[[count{f}#4]]      // <- `data` is projected away but still used by the TopN node above
    \_FieldExtractExec[count{f}#4]
      \_TopNExec[[Order[data{f}#6,ASC,LAST]],2[INTEGER]]
        \_FieldExtractExec[data{f}#6]
          \_ExchangeExec[REPARTITION,FIXED_ARBITRARY_DISTRIBUTION]
            \_EsQueryExec[test], query[][_doc_id{f}#9, _segment_id{f}#10, _shard_id{f}#11]
```

Unfortunately, at that stage the inputs needed by the TopNExec could
have been projected away by a ProjectExec, so they could be no longer
available.

This PR adapts the plan as follows:
- add all the projections used by the `TopNExec` to the existing
`ProjectExec`, so that they are available when needed
- add another ProjectExec on top of the plan, to project away the
originally removed projections and preserve the query semantics


This approach is a bit dangerous, because it bypasses the mechanism of
input/output resolution and validation that happens on the logical plan.
The alternative would be to do this manipulation on the logical plan,
but it's probably hard to do, because there is no concept of Exchange at
that level.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
1 participant
@pgomulka