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

Consistent LogicalPlan subquery handling in TreeNode::apply and TreeNode::visit #9913

Merged

Conversation

peter-toth
Copy link
Contributor

@peter-toth peter-toth commented Apr 2, 2024

Which issue does this PR close?

Part of #8913.

Rationale for this change

TreeNode APIs are inconsistent on LogicaPlan because LogicalPlan:apply() and LogicalPlan::visit() are recursing into subquery plans too (these methods override the original TreeNode::apply and TreeNode::visit() methods).
But there is no LogicalPlan:rewite() or LogicalPlan::transform() overrides defined so calling rewrite() and transform() on a LogicalPlan does rewrite/transform only the current level of the plan and doesn't touch subquery plans.

What changes are included in this PR?

This PR:

  • Moves the code of LogicalPlan::apply() to LogicalPlan::apply_with_subqueries(), and LogicalPlan::visit() to LogicalPlan::visit_with_subqueries() to separate functionality from original the TreeNode::apply() and TreeNode::visit(). So from now the new explicit LogicalPlan::..._with_subqueries() APIs do traverse into subquery plans, while the original TreeNode APIs don't.
  • Adds LogicalPlan::rewrite_with_subqueries(), LogicalPlan::transform_with_subqueries(), LogicalPlan::transform_down_with_subqueries(), LogicalPlan::transform_down_mut_with_subqueries(), LogicalPlan::transform_up_with_subqueries(), LogicalPlan::transform_up_mut_with_subqueries() and LogicalPlan::transform_down_up_with_subqueries() to be able to rewrite LogicalPlans with their subquery plans.
  • Fixes the issue that subquery plans were not treated as child of the node. In the LogicalPlan::..._with_subqueries()s APIs the subquery plans behave like the first children of a node (siblings of the real children of the node).

Are these changes tested?

Yes, with Existing UTs.

Are there any user-facing changes?

Yes - LogicalPlan::apply() no longer recurses into subqueries. The API user needs to change the code to LogicalPlan::apply_with_subqueries() to get the old behaviour.

@github-actions github-actions bot added logical-expr Logical plan and expressions optimizer Optimizer rules core Core DataFusion crate labels Apr 2, 2024
@peter-toth peter-toth changed the title Consistent LogicalPlan Subquery handling Consistent LogicalPlan subquery handling Apr 2, 2024
@peter-toth peter-toth force-pushed the consistent-logicalplan-subquery-handling branch 2 times, most recently from f223ee8 to ea53b77 Compare April 2, 2024 18:58
Copy link
Contributor

@alamb alamb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you (again) @peter-toth -- this looks really nice as well

I think there are is some more documentation we could add, but overall the only concern I have about this PR is the lack of test changes (like it seems to change the semantics of the analyzer / correlated expressions but no tests are changed). So this perhaps suggests we have a lack of test coverage in this area 🤔

@@ -370,6 +373,221 @@ impl LogicalPlan {
}
}

pub fn transform_expressions<F: FnMut(Expr) -> Result<Transformed<Expr>>>(
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can we please add some comments explaining what this is doing (namely that it applying a function to effectively rewrite the expressions of the LogicalPlan node in place)? It is a very cool API to see actually, as it will hopefully save a bunch of copying

}) => expr
.into_iter()
.map_until_stop_and_collect(f)?
.update_data(|expr| {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

😍 -- that is quite a neat way to express this pattern and get the ownership sorted out 👍

datafusion/expr/src/logical_plan/plan.rs Show resolved Hide resolved
@@ -1080,8 +1298,72 @@ impl LogicalPlan {
}

impl LogicalPlan {
pub fn apply_with_subqueries<F: FnMut(&Self) -> Result<TreeNodeRecursion>>(
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Likewise here, can we please add docstrings?

visitor.f_up(self)
}
TreeNodeRecursion::Jump => {
self.visit_subqueries(visitor)?;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Does this treat subqueries as though they were siblings of the node (like if TNR::Jump is returned subquery children will still be visited?)

If so I think I would find that unexpected (I would expect that the subqueries are treated like additional children)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I just moved the code here from LogicalPlan::visit() and in this PR I didn't want to change how subqueries are handled. The new code I added in LogicalPlan::rewrite_with_subqueries() are in sync with this behaviour.

But this is a good question and I think you are right and I too would treat them as additional children. But that would be an API behavior change so I would rather change that in a separate PR.

@@ -155,7 +155,7 @@ impl Analyzer {

/// Do necessary check and fail the invalid plan
fn check_plan(plan: &LogicalPlan) -> Result<()> {
plan.apply(&mut |plan: &LogicalPlan| {
plan.apply_with_subqueries(&mut |plan: &LogicalPlan| {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It is interesting that this didn't change any plans / tests.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Basically I just moved the code of LogicalPlan:: apply() (that overrided TreeNode:: apply()) to LogicalPlan:: apply_with_subqueries() and changed the LogicalPlan:: apply() calls to LogicalPlan:: apply_with_subqueries(). I updated the PR description to be clear.

@alamb alamb changed the title Consistent LogicalPlan subquery handling Consistent LogicalPlan subquery handling in TreeNode::apply Apr 2, 2024
@alamb alamb changed the title Consistent LogicalPlan subquery handling in TreeNode::apply Consistent LogicalPlan subquery handling in TreeNode::apply and TreeNode::visit Apr 2, 2024
@peter-toth
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thank you (again) @peter-toth -- this looks really nice as well

I think there are is some more documentation we could add, but overall the only concern I have about this PR is the lack of test changes (like it seems to change the semantics of the analyzer / correlated expressions but no tests are changed). So this perhaps suggests we have a lack of test coverage in this area 🤔

I rephrased the PR description to be clear. This PR doesn't change the analyzer or anything that uses LogicalPlan APIs. This PR just moves the overriden TreeNode APIs (apply()/visit()) in LogicalPlan to under new names so as to be clear they recurse into subqueries. Also, this PR adds the missing LogicalPlan::rewrite_with_subqueries() that is capable to rewrite LogicalPlans with their subqueries.

@peter-toth
Copy link
Contributor Author

Let me update this PR with the latest main (including #9876) and address review feedbacks today. Until then I'm marking this PR as draft.

@peter-toth
Copy link
Contributor Author

peter-toth commented Apr 5, 2024

@alamb , while I was working on this I realized that currently TreeNode recursion definitions are a bit hard to follow and could be simplified, which will be useful this PR as well. I've opened #9965 to do that. Can we please review/merge #9965 first, then I can wrap up this PR.

@peter-toth peter-toth force-pushed the consistent-logicalplan-subquery-handling branch from ea53b77 to 20f3d65 Compare April 5, 2024 18:50
@peter-toth peter-toth marked this pull request as ready for review April 5, 2024 18:53
@peter-toth
Copy link
Contributor Author

peter-toth commented Apr 5, 2024

@alamb, I've updated the PR. I will try to add tests for the LogicalPlan::..._with_subqueries() APIs in this PR or a in follow-up PR on Monday.

@alamb
Copy link
Contributor

alamb commented Apr 5, 2024

@alamb, I've updated the PR. I will try to add tests for the LogicalPlan::..._with_subqueries() APIs in this PR or a in follow-up PR on Monday.

I think it would be great to do this as a follow up PR on Monday, however I think the utility of unit tests on this code is somewhat limited. It will be tested end to end once I switch the optimizers to using the TreeNode API in #9954.

I took the liberty of pushing a commit to this branch to fix clippy and plan to merge it in when CI passes

@alamb alamb added the api change Changes the API exposed to users of the crate label Apr 5, 2024
@alamb alamb changed the title Consistent LogicalPlan subquery handling in TreeNode::apply and TreeNode::visit Consistent LogicalPlan subquery handling in TreeNode::apply and TreeNode::visit. Rename inspect_expressions to apply_expressions Apr 5, 2024
alamb
alamb previously approved these changes Apr 5, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@alamb alamb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you @peter-toth . Love it

where
F: FnMut(&Expr) -> Result<(), E>,
{
pub fn apply_expressions<F: FnMut(&Expr) -> Result<TreeNodeRecursion>>(
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is an api change as it renames a public function. I couldn't find a way to get the error type to line up, so I think it is unavoidable.

I'll mark this PR as API change

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actually, I found another pattern here: https://github.com/apache/arrow-datafusion/blob/d201ec742b08fa2a0549fc27f0b39622d67391ab/datafusion/expr/src/utils.rs#L684

Maybe we can pull this part (add apply_expressions into a separate PR)? I think it would be valuable in its own -- for example it could be used to void the expressions() copy here:

https://github.com/apache/arrow-datafusion/blob/27bdf3c8c976874aae2417cb2aa435448832ecc0/datafusion/optimizer/src/analyzer/subquery.rs#L236-L241

It could also make this PR smaller

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, we can do that. Let me file a new PR with this change tomorrow and then look into the infinite recursion issue of this PR (peter-toth#3). Until then I'm marking this PR as draft.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@peter-toth peter-toth Apr 7, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've opened #9984 as I think we don't need that inspect_expr_pre(). This PR together with #9984 will remove all usecases of it.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As for https://github.com/apache/arrow-datafusion/blob/27bdf3c8c976874aae2417cb2aa435448832ecc0/datafusion/optimizer/src/analyzer/subquery.rs#L236-L241 I plan to check all .expressions() calls and see if it can be transformed to the better .apply_expressions() once this PR is merged.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sounds good

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've opened #9984 as I think we don't need that inspect_expr_pre(). This PR together with #9984 will remove all usecases of it.

I merged #9984

In order to make this PR easier to merge (so it isn't an API change) I

  1. pushed 7c90e70 to restore inspect_expressions (by calling apply_expressions) and deprecated it.
  2. Removed the API change

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I plan to check all .expressions() calls and see if it can be transformed to the better .apply_expressions() once this PR is merged.

This would be good -- I think there are some more (though #9974 did get merged)

@alamb
Copy link
Contributor

alamb commented Apr 6, 2024

🤔 it appears this PR has some sort of infinite loop -- I will investigate

@peter-toth
Copy link
Contributor Author

🤔 it appears this PR has some sort of infinite loop -- I will investigate

Thanks @alamb . Maybe because now we treat subqueries as additional children? I can also look into it later today or tomorrow...

@peter-toth peter-toth marked this pull request as ready for review April 7, 2024 14:44
@peter-toth
Copy link
Contributor Author

peter-toth commented Apr 7, 2024

This is now ready for review again. The infinite recursion was due to an extra accidental .apply() call. Fixed here: c723492

Copy link
Contributor

@alamb alamb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you @peter-toth -- this PR looks great to me.

I took the liberty of restring inspect_expressions and marking it deprecated and merging up from main.

As I have several PRs backed up on this one, I would like to merge it asap so plan to do so first thing tomorrow morning unless anyone else would like time to review

where
F: FnMut(&Expr) -> Result<(), E>,
{
pub fn apply_expressions<F: FnMut(&Expr) -> Result<TreeNodeRecursion>>(
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sounds good

where
F: FnMut(&Expr) -> Result<(), E>,
{
pub fn apply_expressions<F: FnMut(&Expr) -> Result<TreeNodeRecursion>>(
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've opened #9984 as I think we don't need that inspect_expr_pre(). This PR together with #9984 will remove all usecases of it.

I merged #9984

In order to make this PR easier to merge (so it isn't an API change) I

  1. pushed 7c90e70 to restore inspect_expressions (by calling apply_expressions) and deprecated it.
  2. Removed the API change

@alamb
Copy link
Contributor

alamb commented Apr 7, 2024

I am not sure what you are planning on working on next @peter-toth but one thing I noticed is that keeping track of all the LogicalPlan tree node walking / rewriting is somewhat hard for me (and datafusion/expr/src/logical_plan/plan.rs is getting pretty large).

I wonder if we should move all the code into a single module (maybe alongside the impl TreeNode for LogicalPlan) ? Maybe somethign like datafusion/expr/src/logical_plan/tree_node.rs or datafusion/expr/src/logical_plan/apply_visit.rs 🤔

@alamb alamb removed the api change Changes the API exposed to users of the crate label Apr 7, 2024
@alamb alamb changed the title Consistent LogicalPlan subquery handling in TreeNode::apply and TreeNode::visit. Rename inspect_expressions to apply_expressions Consistent LogicalPlan subquery handling in TreeNode::apply and TreeNode::visit Apr 7, 2024
synthetic_plan.apply(op)?;
}
_ => {}
pub fn visit_with_subqueries<V: TreeNodeVisitor<Node = Self>>(
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

as a follow on PR I also plan to add documentation to these functions. Perhaps I can do so as part of moving the code into its own module

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Docs: #9996

@peter-toth
Copy link
Contributor Author

peter-toth commented Apr 7, 2024

I took the liberty of restring inspect_expressions and marking it deprecated and merging up from main.

Sure, thanks for doing that!

Removed the API change

I was thinking about this a bit more and I unfortunately think this PR is still an API change. If some external code calls .apply() on a LogicalPlan then this PR might break it. This is because the implementation of .apply()will be de default implementation of TreeNode::apply() after this PR and no longer recurse into subqueries. The API user needs to change the code to .apply_with_subqueries() to get the old behaviour.
But I have no other idea to fix the current inconsistency between .apply()/.visit(), that do recurse into subqueries and .rewrite()/.transform(), that don't. (Well we could change .rewrite()/.transform() to do recurse into subqueries, but that too would be a breaking change.)

I am not sure what you are planning on working on next @peter-toth but one thing I noticed is that keeping track of all the LogicalPlan tree node walking / rewriting is somewhat hard for me (and datafusion/expr/src/logical_plan/plan.rs is getting pretty large).

I agree. I'm happy to take that task, but I will be travelling from Tuesday till the end of the week, so most likely I can only do that once I'm back.

@alamb alamb added the api change Changes the API exposed to users of the crate label Apr 8, 2024
@alamb
Copy link
Contributor

alamb commented Apr 8, 2024

I was thinking about this a bit more and I unfortunately think this PR is still an API change.

That makes sense -- I have added the label back.

But I have no other idea to fix the current inconsistency between

I think it is inevitable that there are different calls for LogicalPlan for traversing with subqueries and without subqueries

I agree. I'm happy to take that task,

Awesome -- thank you. I filed #9994 to track the idea. I may make a few small PRs in this direction to start the process too

@alamb
Copy link
Contributor

alamb commented Apr 8, 2024

Thanks again @peter-toth

@@ -1079,57 +1317,178 @@ impl LogicalPlan {
}
}

/// This macro is used to determine continuation during combined transforming
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this may be dead code -- can somone check #9997 ?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actually, I deliberately added ..._with_subqueries() versions of all base TreeNode APIs to LogicalPlan. These 3 macros are used in LogicalPlan::rewrite_with_subqueries(), LogicalPlan::transform_down_with_subqueries() and LogicalPlan::transform_up_with_subqueries().

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Cool -- thanks -- I think that will be clearer as we consolidate the tree rewriting code

@peter-toth
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks @alamb for the review!

This pull request was closed.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
api change Changes the API exposed to users of the crate core Core DataFusion crate logical-expr Logical plan and expressions optimizer Optimizer rules
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants