-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 28.5k
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
[SPARK-50091][SQL][3.5] Handle case of aggregates in left-hand operand of IN-subquery #49663
Closed
bersprockets
wants to merge
1
commit into
apache:branch-3.5
from
bersprockets:aggregate_in_set_issue_br35
Closed
[SPARK-50091][SQL][3.5] Handle case of aggregates in left-hand operand of IN-subquery #49663
bersprockets
wants to merge
1
commit into
apache:branch-3.5
from
bersprockets:aggregate_in_set_issue_br35
Conversation
This file contains 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
…IN-subquery This PR adds code to `RewritePredicateSubquery#apply` to explicitly handle the case where an `Aggregate` node contains an aggregate expression in the left-hand operand of an IN-subquery expression. The explicit handler moves the IN-subquery expressions out of the `Aggregate` and into a parent `Project` node. The `Aggregate` will continue to perform the aggregations that were used as an operand to the IN-subquery expression, but will not include the IN-subquery expression itself. After pulling up IN-subquery expressions into a Project node, `RewritePredicateSubquery#apply` is called again to handle the `Project` as a `UnaryNode`. The `Join` will now be inserted between the `Project` and the `Aggregate` node, and the join condition will use an attribute rather than an aggregate expression, e.g.: ``` Project [col1#32, exists#42 AS (sum(col2) IN (listquery()))apache#40] +- Join ExistenceJoin(exists#42), (sum(col2)#41L = c2#39L) :- Aggregate [col1#32], [col1#32, sum(col2#33) AS sum(col2)#41L] : +- LocalRelation [col1#32, col2#33] +- LocalRelation [c2#39L] ``` `sum(col2)#41L` in the above join condition, despite how it looks, is the name of the attribute, not an aggregate expression. The following query fails: ``` create or replace temp view v1(c1, c2) as values (1, 2), (1, 3), (2, 2), (3, 7), (3, 1); create or replace temp view v2(col1, col2) as values (1, 2), (1, 3), (2, 2), (3, 7), (3, 1); select col1, sum(col2) in (select c2 from v1) from v2 group by col1; ``` It fails with this error: ``` [INTERNAL_ERROR] Cannot generate code for expression: sum(input[1, int, false]) SQLSTATE: XX000 ``` With SPARK_TESTING=1, it fails with this error: ``` [PLAN_VALIDATION_FAILED_RULE_IN_BATCH] Rule org.apache.spark.sql.catalyst.optimizer.RewritePredicateSubquery in batch RewriteSubquery generated an invalid plan: Special expressions are placed in the wrong plan: Aggregate [col1#11], [col1#11, first(exists#20, false) AS (sum(col2) IN (listquery()))apache#19] +- Join ExistenceJoin(exists#20), (sum(col2#12) = c2#18L) :- LocalRelation [col1#11, col2#12] +- LocalRelation [c2#18L] ``` The issue is that `RewritePredicateSubquery` builds a `Join` operator where the join condition contains an aggregate expression. The bug is in the handler for `UnaryNode` in `RewritePredicateSubquery#apply`, which adds a `Join` below the `Aggregate` and assumes that the left-hand operand of IN-subquery can be used in the join condition. This works fine for most cases, but not when the left-hand operand is an aggregate expression. This PR moves the offending IN-subqueries to a `Project` node, with the aggregates replaced by attributes referring to the aggregate expressions. The resulting join condition now uses those attributes rather than the actual aggregate expressions. No, other than allowing this type of query to succeed. New unit tests. No. Closes apache#48627 from bersprockets/aggregate_in_set_issue. Authored-by: Bruce Robbins <bersprockets@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com>
dongjoon-hyun
approved these changes
Jan 25, 2025
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, LGTM. Thank you, @bersprockets .
Merged to branch-3.5.
dongjoon-hyun
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 25, 2025
…d of IN-subquery ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This is a back-port of #48627. This PR adds code to `RewritePredicateSubquery#apply` to explicitly handle the case where an `Aggregate` node contains an aggregate expression in the left-hand operand of an IN-subquery expression. The explicit handler moves the IN-subquery expressions out of the `Aggregate` and into a parent `Project` node. The `Aggregate` will continue to perform the aggregations that were used as an operand to the IN-subquery expression, but will not include the IN-subquery expression itself. After pulling up IN-subquery expressions into a Project node, `RewritePredicateSubquery#apply` is called again to handle the `Project` as a `UnaryNode`. The `Join` will now be inserted between the `Project` and the `Aggregate` node, and the join condition will use an attribute rather than an aggregate expression, e.g.: ``` Project [col1#32, exists#42 AS (sum(col2) IN (listquery()))#40] +- Join ExistenceJoin(exists#42), (sum(col2)#41L = c2#39L) :- Aggregate [col1#32], [col1#32, sum(col2#33) AS sum(col2)#41L] : +- LocalRelation [col1#32, col2#33] +- LocalRelation [c2#39L] ``` `sum(col2)#41L` in the above join condition, despite how it looks, is the name of the attribute, not an aggregate expression. ### Why are the changes needed? The following query fails: ``` create or replace temp view v1(c1, c2) as values (1, 2), (1, 3), (2, 2), (3, 7), (3, 1); create or replace temp view v2(col1, col2) as values (1, 2), (1, 3), (2, 2), (3, 7), (3, 1); select col1, sum(col2) in (select c2 from v1) from v2 group by col1; ``` It fails with this error: ``` [INTERNAL_ERROR] Cannot generate code for expression: sum(input[1, int, false]) SQLSTATE: XX000 ``` With SPARK_TESTING=1, it fails with this error: ``` [PLAN_VALIDATION_FAILED_RULE_IN_BATCH] Rule org.apache.spark.sql.catalyst.optimizer.RewritePredicateSubquery in batch RewriteSubquery generated an invalid plan: Special expressions are placed in the wrong plan: Aggregate [col1#11], [col1#11, first(exists#20, false) AS (sum(col2) IN (listquery()))#19] +- Join ExistenceJoin(exists#20), (sum(col2#12) = c2#18L) :- LocalRelation [col1#11, col2#12] +- LocalRelation [c2#18L] ``` The issue is that `RewritePredicateSubquery` builds a `Join` operator where the join condition contains an aggregate expression. The bug is in the handler for `UnaryNode` in `RewritePredicateSubquery#apply`, which adds a `Join` below the `Aggregate` and assumes that the left-hand operand of IN-subquery can be used in the join condition. This works fine for most cases, but not when the left-hand operand is an aggregate expression. This PR moves the offending IN-subqueries to a `Project` node, with the aggregates replaced by attributes referring to the aggregate expressions. The resulting join condition now uses those attributes rather than the actual aggregate expressions. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No, other than allowing this type of query to succeed. ### How was this patch tested? New unit tests. ### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? No. Closes #49663 from bersprockets/aggregate_in_set_issue_br35. Authored-by: Bruce Robbins <bersprockets@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dongjoon@apache.org>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
This is a back-port of #48627.
This PR adds code to
RewritePredicateSubquery#apply
to explicitly handle the case where anAggregate
node contains an aggregate expression in the left-hand operand of an IN-subquery expression. The explicit handler moves the IN-subquery expressions out of theAggregate
and into a parentProject
node. TheAggregate
will continue to perform the aggregations that were used as an operand to the IN-subquery expression, but will not include the IN-subquery expression itself. After pulling up IN-subquery expressions into a Project node,RewritePredicateSubquery#apply
is called again to handle theProject
as aUnaryNode
. TheJoin
will now be inserted between theProject
and theAggregate
node, and the join condition will use an attribute rather than an aggregate expression, e.g.:sum(col2)#41L
in the above join condition, despite how it looks, is the name of the attribute, not an aggregate expression.Why are the changes needed?
The following query fails:
It fails with this error:
With SPARK_TESTING=1, it fails with this error:
The issue is that
RewritePredicateSubquery
builds aJoin
operator where the join condition contains an aggregate expression.The bug is in the handler for
UnaryNode
inRewritePredicateSubquery#apply
, which adds aJoin
below theAggregate
and assumes that the left-hand operand of IN-subquery can be used in the join condition. This works fine for most cases, but not when the left-hand operand is an aggregate expression.This PR moves the offending IN-subqueries to a
Project
node, with the aggregates replaced by attributes referring to the aggregate expressions. The resulting join condition now uses those attributes rather than the actual aggregate expressions.Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No, other than allowing this type of query to succeed.
How was this patch tested?
New unit tests.
Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
No.