924060929 commented on code in PR #65129:
URL: https://github.com/apache/doris/pull/65129#discussion_r3548446898
##########
regression-test/suites/query_p0/set_operations/bucket_shuffle_set_operation.groovy:
##########
@@ -95,6 +95,36 @@ suite("bucket_shuffle_set_operation") {
select id from bucket_shuffle_set_operation2 where id=1
""")
+ // The basic child of a bucket-shuffle set operation can be a join output
instead of a
+ // direct scan. In that shape the local exchange planned for the basic
side must still
+ // partition by the storage bucket function: an execution-hash local
exchange would not
+ // align with the bucket-distributed side and the set operation would
compute wrong results.
+ checkShapeAndResult("bucket_shuffle_join_as_basic_child", """
+ select a.id from bucket_shuffle_set_operation1 a
+ join bucket_shuffle_set_operation2 b on a.id = b.id
+ intersect
+ select id from bucket_shuffle_set_operation3""")
+
+ // a set operation child can itself be a set operation whose output claims
a bucket
+ // distribution; the outer set operation must only treat its children as
bucket-aligned
+ // when they share the same storage layout
+ checkShapeAndResult("bucket_shuffle_nested_set_operation", """
+ select id from bucket_shuffle_set_operation3
+ union all
+ (select a.id from bucket_shuffle_set_operation1 a
+ join bucket_shuffle_set_operation2 b on a.id = b.id
+ intersect
+ select id from bucket_shuffle_set_operation2)""")
+
+ // when local shuffle is disabled entirely, every pipeline runs a single
task per
+ // instance so the bucket alignment holds naturally and bucket shuffle is
still allowed
+ sql "set enable_local_shuffle=false"
+ checkShapeAndResult("bucket_shuffle_when_local_shuffle_off", """
Review Comment:
Added a regression case `union_parent_hash_when_local_shuffle_planner_off`.
It puts a shuffle join above a union so the union receives a parent hash
request (`createHashRequestAccordingToParent`), sets
`enable_local_shuffle_planner=false`, and asserts via explain that the
`PhysicalUnion` is not a bucket-shuffle union, plus an `order_qt` result check.
Verified on a 4-BE cluster: the union stays `PhysicalUnion` (children
`PhysicalDistribute[DistributionSpecHash]`) while the join above may still be a
bucket-shuffle join (legal for the legacy coordinator), and the result is
correct.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
