[SPARK-36034][SQL][3.1] Rebase datetime in pushed down filters to parquet #33375
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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 the PR, I propose to propagate either the SQL config `spark.sql.parquet.datetimeRebaseModeInRead` or/and Parquet option `datetimeRebaseMode` to `ParquetFilters`. The `ParquetFilters` class uses the settings in conversions of dates/timestamps instances from datasource filters to values pushed via `FilterApi` to the `parquet-column` lib. Before the changes, date/timestamp values expressed as days/microseconds/milliseconds are interpreted as offsets in Proleptic Gregorian calendar, and pushed to the parquet library as is. That works fine if timestamp/dates values in parquet files were saved in the `CORRECTED` mode but in the `LEGACY` mode, filter's values could not match to actual values. After the changes, timestamp/dates values of filters pushed down to parquet libs such as `FilterApi.eq(col1, -719162)` are rebased according the rebase settings. For the example, if the rebase mode is `CORRECTED`, **-719162** is pushed down as is but if the current rebase mode is `LEGACY`, the number of days is rebased to **-719164**. For more context, the PR description apache#28067 shows the diffs between two calendars. The changes fix the bug portrayed by the following example from SPARK-36034: ```scala In [27]: spark.conf.set("spark.sql.legacy.parquet.datetimeRebaseModeInWrite", "LEGACY") >>> spark.sql("SELECT DATE '0001-01-01' AS date").write.mode("overwrite").parquet("date_written_by_spark3_legacy") >>> spark.read.parquet("date_written_by_spark3_legacy").where("date = '0001-01-01'").show() +----+ |date| +----+ +----+ ``` The result must have the date value `0001-01-01`. In some sense, yes. Query results can be different in some cases. For the example above: ```scala scala> spark.conf.set("spark.sql.parquet.datetimeRebaseModeInWrite", "LEGACY") scala> spark.sql("SELECT DATE '0001-01-01' AS date").write.mode("overwrite").parquet("date_written_by_spark3_legacy") scala> spark.read.parquet("date_written_by_spark3_legacy").where("date = '0001-01-01'").show(false) +----------+ |date | +----------+ |0001-01-01| +----------+ ``` By running the modified test suite `ParquetFilterSuite`: ``` $ build/sbt "test:testOnly *ParquetV1FilterSuite" $ build/sbt "test:testOnly *ParquetV2FilterSuite" ``` Closes apache#33347 from MaxGekk/fix-parquet-ts-filter-pushdown. Authored-by: Max Gekk <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Max Gekk <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit b09b7f7) Signed-off-by: Max Gekk <[email protected]>
|
Kubernetes integration test starting |
|
Kubernetes integration test status failure |
|
Test build #141094 has finished for PR 33375 at commit
|
HyukjinKwon
approved these changes
Jul 16, 2021
Member
|
Merged to branch-3.1. |
HyukjinKwon
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 16, 2021
…quet ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? In the PR, I propose to propagate either the SQL config `spark.sql.parquet.datetimeRebaseModeInRead` or/and Parquet option `datetimeRebaseMode` to `ParquetFilters`. The `ParquetFilters` class uses the settings in conversions of dates/timestamps instances from datasource filters to values pushed via `FilterApi` to the `parquet-column` lib. Before the changes, date/timestamp values expressed as days/microseconds/milliseconds are interpreted as offsets in Proleptic Gregorian calendar, and pushed to the parquet library as is. That works fine if timestamp/dates values in parquet files were saved in the `CORRECTED` mode but in the `LEGACY` mode, filter's values could not match to actual values. After the changes, timestamp/dates values of filters pushed down to parquet libs such as `FilterApi.eq(col1, -719162)` are rebased according the rebase settings. For the example, if the rebase mode is `CORRECTED`, **-719162** is pushed down as is but if the current rebase mode is `LEGACY`, the number of days is rebased to **-719164**. For more context, the PR description #28067 shows the diffs between two calendars. ### Why are the changes needed? The changes fix the bug portrayed by the following example from SPARK-36034: ```scala In [27]: spark.conf.set("spark.sql.legacy.parquet.datetimeRebaseModeInWrite", "LEGACY") >>> spark.sql("SELECT DATE '0001-01-01' AS date").write.mode("overwrite").parquet("date_written_by_spark3_legacy") >>> spark.read.parquet("date_written_by_spark3_legacy").where("date = '0001-01-01'").show() +----+ |date| +----+ +----+ ``` The result must have the date value `0001-01-01`. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? In some sense, yes. Query results can be different in some cases. For the example above: ```scala scala> spark.conf.set("spark.sql.parquet.datetimeRebaseModeInWrite", "LEGACY") scala> spark.sql("SELECT DATE '0001-01-01' AS date").write.mode("overwrite").parquet("date_written_by_spark3_legacy") scala> spark.read.parquet("date_written_by_spark3_legacy").where("date = '0001-01-01'").show(false) +----------+ |date | +----------+ |0001-01-01| +----------+ ``` ### How was this patch tested? By running the modified test suite `ParquetFilterSuite`: ``` $ build/sbt "test:testOnly *ParquetV1FilterSuite" $ build/sbt "test:testOnly *ParquetV2FilterSuite" ``` Authored-by: Max Gekk <max.gekkgmail.com> Signed-off-by: Max Gekk <max.gekkgmail.com> (cherry picked from commit b09b7f7) Signed-off-by: Max Gekk <max.gekkgmail.com> Closes #33375 from MaxGekk/fix-parquet-ts-filter-pushdown-3.1. Authored-by: Max Gekk <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Hyukjin Kwon <[email protected]>
MaxGekk
added a commit
to MaxGekk/spark
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 16, 2021
…quet In the PR, I propose to propagate either the SQL config `spark.sql.parquet.datetimeRebaseModeInRead` or/and Parquet option `datetimeRebaseMode` to `ParquetFilters`. The `ParquetFilters` class uses the settings in conversions of dates/timestamps instances from datasource filters to values pushed via `FilterApi` to the `parquet-column` lib. Before the changes, date/timestamp values expressed as days/microseconds/milliseconds are interpreted as offsets in Proleptic Gregorian calendar, and pushed to the parquet library as is. That works fine if timestamp/dates values in parquet files were saved in the `CORRECTED` mode but in the `LEGACY` mode, filter's values could not match to actual values. After the changes, timestamp/dates values of filters pushed down to parquet libs such as `FilterApi.eq(col1, -719162)` are rebased according the rebase settings. For the example, if the rebase mode is `CORRECTED`, **-719162** is pushed down as is but if the current rebase mode is `LEGACY`, the number of days is rebased to **-719164**. For more context, the PR description apache#28067 shows the diffs between two calendars. The changes fix the bug portrayed by the following example from SPARK-36034: ```scala In [27]: spark.conf.set("spark.sql.legacy.parquet.datetimeRebaseModeInWrite", "LEGACY") >>> spark.sql("SELECT DATE '0001-01-01' AS date").write.mode("overwrite").parquet("date_written_by_spark3_legacy") >>> spark.read.parquet("date_written_by_spark3_legacy").where("date = '0001-01-01'").show() +----+ |date| +----+ +----+ ``` The result must have the date value `0001-01-01`. In some sense, yes. Query results can be different in some cases. For the example above: ```scala scala> spark.conf.set("spark.sql.parquet.datetimeRebaseModeInWrite", "LEGACY") scala> spark.sql("SELECT DATE '0001-01-01' AS date").write.mode("overwrite").parquet("date_written_by_spark3_legacy") scala> spark.read.parquet("date_written_by_spark3_legacy").where("date = '0001-01-01'").show(false) +----------+ |date | +----------+ |0001-01-01| +----------+ ``` By running the modified test suite `ParquetFilterSuite`: ``` $ build/sbt "test:testOnly *ParquetV1FilterSuite" $ build/sbt "test:testOnly *ParquetV2FilterSuite" ``` Authored-by: Max Gekk <max.gekkgmail.com> Signed-off-by: Max Gekk <max.gekkgmail.com> (cherry picked from commit b09b7f7) Signed-off-by: Max Gekk <max.gekkgmail.com> Closes apache#33375 from MaxGekk/fix-parquet-ts-filter-pushdown-3.1. Authored-by: Max Gekk <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Hyukjin Kwon <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit ba71172) Signed-off-by: Max Gekk <[email protected]>
flyrain
pushed a commit
to flyrain/spark
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 21, 2021
…quet ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? In the PR, I propose to propagate either the SQL config `spark.sql.parquet.datetimeRebaseModeInRead` or/and Parquet option `datetimeRebaseMode` to `ParquetFilters`. The `ParquetFilters` class uses the settings in conversions of dates/timestamps instances from datasource filters to values pushed via `FilterApi` to the `parquet-column` lib. Before the changes, date/timestamp values expressed as days/microseconds/milliseconds are interpreted as offsets in Proleptic Gregorian calendar, and pushed to the parquet library as is. That works fine if timestamp/dates values in parquet files were saved in the `CORRECTED` mode but in the `LEGACY` mode, filter's values could not match to actual values. After the changes, timestamp/dates values of filters pushed down to parquet libs such as `FilterApi.eq(col1, -719162)` are rebased according the rebase settings. For the example, if the rebase mode is `CORRECTED`, **-719162** is pushed down as is but if the current rebase mode is `LEGACY`, the number of days is rebased to **-719164**. For more context, the PR description apache#28067 shows the diffs between two calendars. ### Why are the changes needed? The changes fix the bug portrayed by the following example from SPARK-36034: ```scala In [27]: spark.conf.set("spark.sql.legacy.parquet.datetimeRebaseModeInWrite", "LEGACY") >>> spark.sql("SELECT DATE '0001-01-01' AS date").write.mode("overwrite").parquet("date_written_by_spark3_legacy") >>> spark.read.parquet("date_written_by_spark3_legacy").where("date = '0001-01-01'").show() +----+ |date| +----+ +----+ ``` The result must have the date value `0001-01-01`. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? In some sense, yes. Query results can be different in some cases. For the example above: ```scala scala> spark.conf.set("spark.sql.parquet.datetimeRebaseModeInWrite", "LEGACY") scala> spark.sql("SELECT DATE '0001-01-01' AS date").write.mode("overwrite").parquet("date_written_by_spark3_legacy") scala> spark.read.parquet("date_written_by_spark3_legacy").where("date = '0001-01-01'").show(false) +----------+ |date | +----------+ |0001-01-01| +----------+ ``` ### How was this patch tested? By running the modified test suite `ParquetFilterSuite`: ``` $ build/sbt "test:testOnly *ParquetV1FilterSuite" $ build/sbt "test:testOnly *ParquetV2FilterSuite" ``` Authored-by: Max Gekk <max.gekkgmail.com> Signed-off-by: Max Gekk <max.gekkgmail.com> (cherry picked from commit b09b7f7) Signed-off-by: Max Gekk <max.gekkgmail.com> Closes apache#33375 from MaxGekk/fix-parquet-ts-filter-pushdown-3.1. Authored-by: Max Gekk <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Hyukjin Kwon <[email protected]>
fishcus
pushed a commit
to fishcus/spark
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 12, 2022
…quet ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? In the PR, I propose to propagate either the SQL config `spark.sql.parquet.datetimeRebaseModeInRead` or/and Parquet option `datetimeRebaseMode` to `ParquetFilters`. The `ParquetFilters` class uses the settings in conversions of dates/timestamps instances from datasource filters to values pushed via `FilterApi` to the `parquet-column` lib. Before the changes, date/timestamp values expressed as days/microseconds/milliseconds are interpreted as offsets in Proleptic Gregorian calendar, and pushed to the parquet library as is. That works fine if timestamp/dates values in parquet files were saved in the `CORRECTED` mode but in the `LEGACY` mode, filter's values could not match to actual values. After the changes, timestamp/dates values of filters pushed down to parquet libs such as `FilterApi.eq(col1, -719162)` are rebased according the rebase settings. For the example, if the rebase mode is `CORRECTED`, **-719162** is pushed down as is but if the current rebase mode is `LEGACY`, the number of days is rebased to **-719164**. For more context, the PR description apache#28067 shows the diffs between two calendars. ### Why are the changes needed? The changes fix the bug portrayed by the following example from SPARK-36034: ```scala In [27]: spark.conf.set("spark.sql.legacy.parquet.datetimeRebaseModeInWrite", "LEGACY") >>> spark.sql("SELECT DATE '0001-01-01' AS date").write.mode("overwrite").parquet("date_written_by_spark3_legacy") >>> spark.read.parquet("date_written_by_spark3_legacy").where("date = '0001-01-01'").show() +----+ |date| +----+ +----+ ``` The result must have the date value `0001-01-01`. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? In some sense, yes. Query results can be different in some cases. For the example above: ```scala scala> spark.conf.set("spark.sql.parquet.datetimeRebaseModeInWrite", "LEGACY") scala> spark.sql("SELECT DATE '0001-01-01' AS date").write.mode("overwrite").parquet("date_written_by_spark3_legacy") scala> spark.read.parquet("date_written_by_spark3_legacy").where("date = '0001-01-01'").show(false) +----------+ |date | +----------+ |0001-01-01| +----------+ ``` ### How was this patch tested? By running the modified test suite `ParquetFilterSuite`: ``` $ build/sbt "test:testOnly *ParquetV1FilterSuite" $ build/sbt "test:testOnly *ParquetV2FilterSuite" ``` Authored-by: Max Gekk <max.gekkgmail.com> Signed-off-by: Max Gekk <max.gekkgmail.com> (cherry picked from commit b09b7f7) Signed-off-by: Max Gekk <max.gekkgmail.com> Closes apache#33375 from MaxGekk/fix-parquet-ts-filter-pushdown-3.1. Authored-by: Max Gekk <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Hyukjin Kwon <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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?
In the PR, I propose to propagate either the SQL config
spark.sql.parquet.datetimeRebaseModeInReador/and Parquet optiondatetimeRebaseModetoParquetFilters. TheParquetFiltersclass uses the settings in conversions of dates/timestamps instances from datasource filters to values pushed viaFilterApito theparquet-columnlib.Before the changes, date/timestamp values expressed as days/microseconds/milliseconds are interpreted as offsets in Proleptic Gregorian calendar, and pushed to the parquet library as is. That works fine if timestamp/dates values in parquet files were saved in the
CORRECTEDmode but in theLEGACYmode, filter's values could not match to actual values.After the changes, timestamp/dates values of filters pushed down to parquet libs such as
FilterApi.eq(col1, -719162)are rebased according the rebase settings. For the example, if the rebase mode isCORRECTED, -719162 is pushed down as is but if the current rebase mode isLEGACY, the number of days is rebased to -719164. For more context, the PR description #28067 shows the diffs between two calendars.Why are the changes needed?
The changes fix the bug portrayed by the following example from SPARK-36034:
The result must have the date value
0001-01-01.Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
In some sense, yes. Query results can be different in some cases. For the example above:
How was this patch tested?
By running the modified test suite
ParquetFilterSuite:Authored-by: Max Gekk [email protected]
Signed-off-by: Max Gekk [email protected]
(cherry picked from commit b09b7f7)
Signed-off-by: Max Gekk [email protected]