Skip to content

Conversation

@ulysses-you
Copy link
Owner

Reverts #9

@ulysses-you ulysses-you merged this pull request into master Oct 21, 2021
@ulysses-you ulysses-you deleted the revert-9-benchmark-guide branch October 21, 2021 02:25
@github-actions github-actions bot added the INFRA label Oct 21, 2021
ulysses-you pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 26, 2021
…mand

### What changes were proposed in this pull request?

This PR proposes to sort table properties in DESCRIBE TABLE command. This is consistent with DSv2 command as well:
https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/e3058ba17cb4512537953eb4ded884e24ee93ba2/sql/core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/execution/datasources/v2/DescribeTableExec.scala#L63

This PR fixes the test case in Scala 2.13 build as well where the table properties have different order in the map.

### Why are the changes needed?

To keep the deterministic and pretty output, and fix the tests in Scala 2.13 build.
See https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/spark-master-test-maven-hadoop-3.2-scala-2.13/49/testReport/junit/org.apache.spark.sql/SQLQueryTestSuite/describe_sql/

```
describe.sql
Expected "...spark_catalog, view.[query.out.col.2=c, view.referredTempFunctionsNames=[], view.catalogAndNamespace.part.1=default]]", but got "...spark_catalog, view.[catalogAndNamespace.part.1=default, view.query.out.col.2=c, view.referredTempFunctionsNames=[]]]" Result did not match for query apache#29
DESC FORMATTED v
```

### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change?

Yes, it will change the text output from `DESCRIBE [EXTENDED|FORMATTED] table_name`.
Now the table properties are sorted by its key.

### How was this patch tested?

Related unittests were fixed accordingly.

Closes apache#30799 from HyukjinKwon/SPARK-33803.

Authored-by: HyukjinKwon <gurwls223@apache.org>
Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com>
(cherry picked from commit 7845865)
Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com>
ulysses-you pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 14, 2022
…aceable

### What changes were proposed in this pull request?

This PR uses a manual recursion to replace `RuntimeReplaceable` expressions instead of `transformAllExpressionsWithPruning`. The problem of `transformAllExpressionsWithPruning` is it will automatically make the replacement expression inherit  the function alias name from the parent node, which is quite misleading. For example, `select date_part('month', c) from t`, the optimized plan in EXPLAIN before this PR is
```
Project [date_part(cast(c#18 as date)) AS date_part(month, c)apache#19]
+- Relation default.t[c#18] parquet
```
Now it's
```
Project [month(cast(c#9 as date)) AS date_part(month, c)#10]
+- Relation default.t[c#9] parquet
```

### Why are the changes needed?

fix misleading EXPLAIN result

### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change?

no

### How was this patch tested?

new test

Closes apache#35821 from cloud-fan/follow2.

Authored-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com>
Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dongjoon@apache.org>
ulysses-you pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 27, 2024
…n properly

### What changes were proposed in this pull request?
Make `ResolveRelations` handle plan id properly

### Why are the changes needed?
bug fix for Spark Connect, it won't affect classic Spark SQL

before this PR:
```
from pyspark.sql import functions as sf

spark.range(10).withColumn("value_1", sf.lit(1)).write.saveAsTable("test_table_1")
spark.range(10).withColumnRenamed("id", "index").withColumn("value_2", sf.lit(2)).write.saveAsTable("test_table_2")

df1 = spark.read.table("test_table_1")
df2 = spark.read.table("test_table_2")
df3 = spark.read.table("test_table_1")

join1 = df1.join(df2, on=df1.id==df2.index).select(df2.index, df2.value_2)
join2 = df3.join(join1, how="left", on=join1.index==df3.id)

join2.schema
```

fails with
```
AnalysisException: [CANNOT_RESOLVE_DATAFRAME_COLUMN] Cannot resolve dataframe column "id". It's probably because of illegal references like `df1.select(df2.col("a"))`. SQLSTATE: 42704
```

That is due to existing plan caching in `ResolveRelations` doesn't work with Spark Connect

```
=== Applying Rule org.apache.spark.sql.catalyst.analysis.Analyzer$ResolveRelations ===
 '[#12]Join LeftOuter, '`==`('index, 'id)                     '[#12]Join LeftOuter, '`==`('index, 'id)
!:- '[#9]UnresolvedRelation [test_table_1], [], false         :- '[#9]SubqueryAlias spark_catalog.default.test_table_1
!+- '[#11]Project ['index, 'value_2]                          :  +- 'UnresolvedCatalogRelation `spark_catalog`.`default`.`test_table_1`, [], false
!   +- '[#10]Join Inner, '`==`('id, 'index)                   +- '[#11]Project ['index, 'value_2]
!      :- '[#7]UnresolvedRelation [test_table_1], [], false      +- '[#10]Join Inner, '`==`('id, 'index)
!      +- '[#8]UnresolvedRelation [test_table_2], [], false         :- '[#9]SubqueryAlias spark_catalog.default.test_table_1
!                                                                   :  +- 'UnresolvedCatalogRelation `spark_catalog`.`default`.`test_table_1`, [], false
!                                                                   +- '[#8]SubqueryAlias spark_catalog.default.test_table_2
!                                                                      +- 'UnresolvedCatalogRelation `spark_catalog`.`default`.`test_table_2`, [], false

Can not resolve 'id with plan 7
```

`[#7]UnresolvedRelation [test_table_1], [], false` was wrongly resolved to the cached one
```
:- '[#9]SubqueryAlias spark_catalog.default.test_table_1
   +- 'UnresolvedCatalogRelation `spark_catalog`.`default`.`test_table_1`, [], false
```

### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change?
yes, bug fix

### How was this patch tested?
added ut

### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
ci

Closes apache#45214 from zhengruifeng/connect_fix_read_join.

Authored-by: Ruifeng Zheng <ruifengz@apache.org>
Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dhyun@apple.com>
ulysses-you pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 13, 2024
…plan properly

### What changes were proposed in this pull request?
Make `ResolveRelations` handle plan id properly

cherry-pick bugfix apache#45214 to 3.5

### Why are the changes needed?
bug fix for Spark Connect, it won't affect classic Spark SQL

before this PR:
```
from pyspark.sql import functions as sf

spark.range(10).withColumn("value_1", sf.lit(1)).write.saveAsTable("test_table_1")
spark.range(10).withColumnRenamed("id", "index").withColumn("value_2", sf.lit(2)).write.saveAsTable("test_table_2")

df1 = spark.read.table("test_table_1")
df2 = spark.read.table("test_table_2")
df3 = spark.read.table("test_table_1")

join1 = df1.join(df2, on=df1.id==df2.index).select(df2.index, df2.value_2)
join2 = df3.join(join1, how="left", on=join1.index==df3.id)

join2.schema
```

fails with
```
AnalysisException: [CANNOT_RESOLVE_DATAFRAME_COLUMN] Cannot resolve dataframe column "id". It's probably because of illegal references like `df1.select(df2.col("a"))`. SQLSTATE: 42704
```

That is due to existing plan caching in `ResolveRelations` doesn't work with Spark Connect

```
=== Applying Rule org.apache.spark.sql.catalyst.analysis.Analyzer$ResolveRelations ===
 '[#12]Join LeftOuter, '`==`('index, 'id)                     '[#12]Join LeftOuter, '`==`('index, 'id)
!:- '[#9]UnresolvedRelation [test_table_1], [], false         :- '[#9]SubqueryAlias spark_catalog.default.test_table_1
!+- '[#11]Project ['index, 'value_2]                          :  +- 'UnresolvedCatalogRelation `spark_catalog`.`default`.`test_table_1`, [], false
!   +- '[#10]Join Inner, '`==`('id, 'index)                   +- '[#11]Project ['index, 'value_2]
!      :- '[#7]UnresolvedRelation [test_table_1], [], false      +- '[#10]Join Inner, '`==`('id, 'index)
!      +- '[#8]UnresolvedRelation [test_table_2], [], false         :- '[#9]SubqueryAlias spark_catalog.default.test_table_1
!                                                                   :  +- 'UnresolvedCatalogRelation `spark_catalog`.`default`.`test_table_1`, [], false
!                                                                   +- '[#8]SubqueryAlias spark_catalog.default.test_table_2
!                                                                      +- 'UnresolvedCatalogRelation `spark_catalog`.`default`.`test_table_2`, [], false

Can not resolve 'id with plan 7
```

`[#7]UnresolvedRelation [test_table_1], [], false` was wrongly resolved to the cached one
```
:- '[#9]SubqueryAlias spark_catalog.default.test_table_1
   +- 'UnresolvedCatalogRelation `spark_catalog`.`default`.`test_table_1`, [], false
```

### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change?
yes, bug fix

### How was this patch tested?
added ut

### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
ci

Closes apache#46291 from zhengruifeng/connect_fix_read_join_35.

Authored-by: Ruifeng Zheng <ruifengz@apache.org>
Signed-off-by: Ruifeng Zheng <ruifengz@apache.org>
ulysses-you pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 13, 2024
…plan properly

### What changes were proposed in this pull request?
Make `ResolveRelations` handle plan id properly

cherry-pick bugfix apache#45214 to 3.4

### Why are the changes needed?
bug fix for Spark Connect, it won't affect classic Spark SQL

before this PR:
```
from pyspark.sql import functions as sf

spark.range(10).withColumn("value_1", sf.lit(1)).write.saveAsTable("test_table_1")
spark.range(10).withColumnRenamed("id", "index").withColumn("value_2", sf.lit(2)).write.saveAsTable("test_table_2")

df1 = spark.read.table("test_table_1")
df2 = spark.read.table("test_table_2")
df3 = spark.read.table("test_table_1")

join1 = df1.join(df2, on=df1.id==df2.index).select(df2.index, df2.value_2)
join2 = df3.join(join1, how="left", on=join1.index==df3.id)

join2.schema
```

fails with
```
AnalysisException: [CANNOT_RESOLVE_DATAFRAME_COLUMN] Cannot resolve dataframe column "id". It's probably because of illegal references like `df1.select(df2.col("a"))`. SQLSTATE: 42704
```

That is due to existing plan caching in `ResolveRelations` doesn't work with Spark Connect

```
=== Applying Rule org.apache.spark.sql.catalyst.analysis.Analyzer$ResolveRelations ===
 '[#12]Join LeftOuter, '`==`('index, 'id)                     '[#12]Join LeftOuter, '`==`('index, 'id)
!:- '[#9]UnresolvedRelation [test_table_1], [], false         :- '[#9]SubqueryAlias spark_catalog.default.test_table_1
!+- '[#11]Project ['index, 'value_2]                          :  +- 'UnresolvedCatalogRelation `spark_catalog`.`default`.`test_table_1`, [], false
!   +- '[#10]Join Inner, '`==`('id, 'index)                   +- '[#11]Project ['index, 'value_2]
!      :- '[#7]UnresolvedRelation [test_table_1], [], false      +- '[#10]Join Inner, '`==`('id, 'index)
!      +- '[#8]UnresolvedRelation [test_table_2], [], false         :- '[#9]SubqueryAlias spark_catalog.default.test_table_1
!                                                                   :  +- 'UnresolvedCatalogRelation `spark_catalog`.`default`.`test_table_1`, [], false
!                                                                   +- '[#8]SubqueryAlias spark_catalog.default.test_table_2
!                                                                      +- 'UnresolvedCatalogRelation `spark_catalog`.`default`.`test_table_2`, [], false

Can not resolve 'id with plan 7
```

`[#7]UnresolvedRelation [test_table_1], [], false` was wrongly resolved to the cached one
```
:- '[#9]SubqueryAlias spark_catalog.default.test_table_1
   +- 'UnresolvedCatalogRelation `spark_catalog`.`default`.`test_table_1`, [], false
```

### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change?
yes, bug fix

### How was this patch tested?
added ut

### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
ci

Closes apache#46290 from zhengruifeng/connect_fix_read_join_34.

Authored-by: Ruifeng Zheng <ruifengz@apache.org>
Signed-off-by: Ruifeng Zheng <ruifengz@apache.org>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants