It's great if you can help with it! Basically, we need to propagate the
column-level deterministic information and sort the inputs if the partition
key lineage has nondeterminisitc part.

On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 5:28 AM Jason Xu <jasonxu.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Wenchen, thanks for the insight. Agree, the previous fix for
> repartition works for deterministic data. With non-deterministic data, I
> didn't find an API to pass DeterministicLevel to underlying rdd.
> Do you plan to continue work on integration with SQL operators? If not,
> I'm available to take a stab.
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 7:00 PM Wenchen Fan <cloud0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> We fixed the repartition correctness bug before, by sorting the data
>> before doing round-robin partitioning. But the issue is that we need to
>> propagate the isDeterministic property through SQL operators.
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 1:50 AM Jason Xu <jasonxu.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Reynold, do you suggest removing RoundRobinPartitioning in
>>> repartition(numPartitions: Int) API implementation? If that's the direction
>>> we're considering, before we have a new implementation, should we suggest
>>> users avoid using the repartition(numPartitions: Int) API?
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 1:47 PM Reynold Xin <r...@databricks.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is why RoundRobinPartitioning shouldn't be used ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 12:08 PM, Jason Xu <jasonxu.sp...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Spark community,
>>>>>
>>>>> I reported a data correctness issue in
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-38388. In short,
>>>>> non-deterministic data + Repartition + FetchFailure could result in
>>>>> incorrect data, this is an issue we run into in production pipelines, I
>>>>> have an example to reproduce the bug in the ticket.
>>>>>
>>>>> I report here to bring more attention, could you help confirm it's a
>>>>> bug and worth effort to further investigate and fix, thank you in advance
>>>>> for help!
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Jason Xu
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>

Reply via email to