-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29k
[SPARK-46693][SQL] Inject LocalLimitExec when matching OffsetAndLimit or LimitAndOffset #44699
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-46693][SQL] Inject LocalLimitExec when matching OffsetAndLimit or LimitAndOffset #44699
Conversation
|
also cc @beliefer |
sql/core/src/test/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/execution/PlannerSuite.scala
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
sql/core/src/test/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/execution/PlannerSuite.scala
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
sql/core/src/test/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/execution/PlannerSuite.scala
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
dongjoon-hyun
left a comment
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, @n-young-db and all.
Merged to master.
|
Welcome to the Apache Spark community, @n-young-db . |
|
BTW, @n-young-db , according to the commit log, SPARK-46274 is your contribution too, right? It seems that it's assigned to someone-else currently. Is there any reason for this contributor mismatch, @n-young-db and @cloud-fan ? |
|
late lgtm |
beliefer
left a comment
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.
Late LGTM.
|
@dongjoon-hyun thanks for catching it! it's a mistake, I've updated the assignee. |
|
@dongjoon-hyun I hadn't gotten my JIRA account yet so I had someone else create the ticket for me; thank you for catching and fixing this! |

What changes were proposed in this pull request?
Why are the changes needed?
Originally,
OffsetAndLimitandLimitAndOffsetmatch cases were matching then dropping a LocalLimit node. Adds this LocalLimitExec node to the physical plan to improve efficiency. Note that this was not a correctness bug since not applying LocalLimit only leads to larger intermediate shuffles / nodes.Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No.
How was this patch tested?
UT
Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
No