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.

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

Add a static config to control cache size for generated classes #133

Open
fishcus opened this issue Jun 24, 2020 · 0 comments
Open

Add a static config to control cache size for generated classes #133

fishcus opened this issue Jun 24, 2020 · 0 comments

Comments

@fishcus
Copy link

fishcus commented Jun 24, 2020

No description provided.

7mming7 pushed a commit that referenced this issue Nov 4, 2020
### What changes were proposed in this pull request?

Currently `BroadcastHashJoinExec` and `ShuffledHashJoinExec` do not preserve children output ordering information (inherit from `SparkPlan.outputOrdering`, which is Nil). This can add unnecessary sort in complex queries involved multiple joins.

Example:

```
withSQLConf(
      SQLConf.AUTO_BROADCASTJOIN_THRESHOLD.key -> "50") {
      val df1 = spark.range(100).select($"id".as("k1"))
      val df2 = spark.range(100).select($"id".as("k2"))
      val df3 = spark.range(3).select($"id".as("k3"))
      val df4 = spark.range(100).select($"id".as("k4"))
      val plan = df1.join(df2, $"k1" === $"k2")
        .join(df3, $"k1" === $"k3")
        .join(df4, $"k1" === $"k4")
        .queryExecution
        .executedPlan
}
```

Current physical plan (extra sort on `k1` before top sort merge join):

```
*(9) SortMergeJoin [k1#220L], [k4#232L], Inner
:- *(6) Sort [k1#220L ASC NULLS FIRST], false, 0
:  +- *(6) BroadcastHashJoin [k1#220L], [k3#228L], Inner, BuildRight
:     :- *(6) SortMergeJoin [k1#220L], [k2#224L], Inner
:     :  :- *(2) Sort [k1#220L ASC NULLS FIRST], false, 0
:     :  :  +- Exchange hashpartitioning(k1#220L, 5), true, [id=#128]
:     :  :     +- *(1) Project [id#218L AS k1#220L]
:     :  :        +- *(1) Range (0, 100, step=1, splits=2)
:     :  +- *(4) Sort [k2#224L ASC NULLS FIRST], false, 0
:     :     +- Exchange hashpartitioning(k2#224L, 5), true, [id=#134]
:     :        +- *(3) Project [id#222L AS k2#224L]
:     :           +- *(3) Range (0, 100, step=1, splits=2)
:     +- BroadcastExchange HashedRelationBroadcastMode(List(input[0, bigint, false])), [id=#141]
:        +- *(5) Project [id#226L AS k3#228L]
:           +- *(5) Range (0, 3, step=1, splits=2)
+- *(8) Sort [k4#232L ASC NULLS FIRST], false, 0
   +- Exchange hashpartitioning(k4#232L, 5), true, [id=#148]
      +- *(7) Project [id#230L AS k4#232L]
         +- *(7) Range (0, 100, step=1, splits=2)
```

Ideal physical plan (no extra sort on `k1` before top sort merge join):

```
*(9) SortMergeJoin [k1#220L], [k4#232L], Inner
:- *(6) BroadcastHashJoin [k1#220L], [k3#228L], Inner, BuildRight
:  :- *(6) SortMergeJoin [k1#220L], [k2#224L], Inner
:  :  :- *(2) Sort [k1#220L ASC NULLS FIRST], false, 0
:  :  :  +- Exchange hashpartitioning(k1#220L, 5), true, [id=#127]
:  :  :     +- *(1) Project [id#218L AS k1#220L]
:  :  :        +- *(1) Range (0, 100, step=1, splits=2)
:  :  +- *(4) Sort [k2#224L ASC NULLS FIRST], false, 0
:  :     +- Exchange hashpartitioning(k2#224L, 5), true, [id=#133]
:  :        +- *(3) Project [id#222L AS k2#224L]
:  :           +- *(3) Range (0, 100, step=1, splits=2)
:  +- BroadcastExchange HashedRelationBroadcastMode(List(input[0, bigint, false])), [id=#140]
:     +- *(5) Project [id#226L AS k3#228L]
:        +- *(5) Range (0, 3, step=1, splits=2)
+- *(8) Sort [k4#232L ASC NULLS FIRST], false, 0
   +- Exchange hashpartitioning(k4#232L, 5), true, [id=#146]
      +- *(7) Project [id#230L AS k4#232L]
         +- *(7) Range (0, 100, step=1, splits=2)
```

### Why are the changes needed?

To avoid unnecessary sort in query, and it has most impact when users read sorted bucketed table.
Though the unnecessary sort is operating on already sorted data, it would have obvious negative impact on IO and query run time if the data is large and external sorting happens.

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

No.

### How was this patch tested?

Added unit test in `JoinSuite`.

Closes apache#29181 from c21/ordering.

Authored-by: Cheng Su <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant