[SPARK-13254][SQL] Fix planning of TakeOrderedAndProject operator #11145
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
|
LGTM, pending tests. |
|
Test build #51008 has finished for PR 11145 at commit
|
|
Test build #51013 has finished for PR 11145 at commit
|
|
Alright, merging this to master. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
The patch for SPARK-8964 ("use Exchange to perform shuffle in Limit" / #7334) inadvertently broke the planning of the TakeOrderedAndProject operator: because ReturnAnswer was the new root of the query plan, the TakeOrderedAndProject rule was unable to match before BasicOperators.
This patch fixes this by moving the
TakeOrderedAndCollectandCollectLimitrules into the same strategy.In addition, I made changes to the TakeOrderedAndProject operator in order to make its
doExecute()method lazy and added a new TakeOrderedAndProjectSuite which tests the new code path./cc @davies and @marmbrus for review.