-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29.3k
[SPARK-13484] [SQL] Prevent illegal NULL propagation when filtering outer-join results #13290
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
Changes from 9 commits
2dcecc8
1ebfa80
ab5d4f1
8850cb3
b636b34
dfd9528
78ed4ef
fff3382
127024d
071b670
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -113,6 +113,8 @@ class Analyzer( | |
| PullOutNondeterministic), | ||
| Batch("UDF", Once, | ||
| HandleNullInputsForUDF), | ||
| Batch("FixNullability", Once, | ||
| FixNullability), | ||
| Batch("Cleanup", fixedPoint, | ||
| CleanupAliases) | ||
| ) | ||
|
|
@@ -1447,6 +1449,38 @@ class Analyzer( | |
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| /** | ||
| * Fixes nullability of Attributes in a resolved LogicalPlan by using the nullability of | ||
| * corresponding Attributes of its children output Attributes. This step is needed because | ||
| * users can use a resolved AttributeReference in the Dataset API and outer joins | ||
| * can change the nullability of an AttribtueReference. Without the fix, a nullable column's | ||
| * nullable field can be actually set as non-nullable, which cause illegal optimization | ||
| * (e.g., NULL propagation) and wrong answers. | ||
| * See SPARK-13484 and SPARK-13801 for the concrete queries of this case. | ||
| */ | ||
| object FixNullability extends Rule[LogicalPlan] { | ||
|
|
||
| def apply(plan: LogicalPlan): LogicalPlan = plan transformUp { | ||
| case p if !p.resolved => p // Skip unresolved nodes. | ||
| case p: LogicalPlan if p.resolved => | ||
| val childrenOutput = p.children.flatMap(c => c.output).groupBy(_.exprId).flatMap { | ||
| case (exprId, attributes) => | ||
| // If there are multiple Attributes having the same ExprId, we need to resolve | ||
| // the conflict of nullable field. | ||
| val nullable = attributes.map(_.nullable).reduce(_ || _) | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Is this case is a possible state, output attributes with the same exprId and different nullability in children?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I feel it is not very possible. Let me think about it more.
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Maybe |
||
| attributes.map(attr => attr.withNullability(nullable)) | ||
| }.toSeq | ||
| val attributeMap = AttributeMap[Attribute](childrenOutput.map(attr => attr -> attr)) | ||
| // For an Attribute used by the current LogicalPlan, if it is from its children, | ||
| // we fix the nullable field by using the nullability setting of the corresponding | ||
| // output Attribute from the children. | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Maybe also explain that |
||
| p.transformExpressions { | ||
| case attr: Attribute if attributeMap.contains(attr) => | ||
| attr.withNullability(attributeMap(attr).nullable) | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| /** | ||
| * Extracts [[WindowExpression]]s from the projectList of a [[Project]] operator and | ||
| * aggregateExpressions of an [[Aggregate]] operator and creates individual [[Window]] | ||
|
|
@@ -2127,4 +2161,3 @@ object TimeWindowing extends Rule[LogicalPlan] { | |
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
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.
When will this happen?
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.
I think with our current implementation, it will not happen.
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.
Then should we just put an
assert/requirehere?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
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.
I am not sure we should add assert. Even when we hit that case, it is still fine to pass at here, right?