mustafasrepo opened a new pull request, #9346: URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow-datafusion/pull/9346
## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> Closes #. ## Rationale for this change In great analysis by @gruuya at the issue [9084](https://github.com/apache/arrow-datafusion/issues/9084). @gruuya recognized that stack usage (depth) increases a lot during logical and physical planning. The root cause of aggressive stack usage is - In the logical planning is excessive use of `.clone` of `LogicalPlan` enum. - In physical planning is the recursive function calls in the getter `API`s of the `Arc<dyn ExecutionPlan>`, such as `EquivalenceProperties`, `output_partitioning`, `output_ordering`, etc. In the [PR9084](https://github.com/apache/arrow-datafusion/issues/9084), @gruuya could reduce physical plan stack usage by caching `equivalence_properties` for `ProjectionExec`. This PR introduces a new struct to cache PlanProperties (`PlanPropertiesCache`). With this struct, `schema`, `output_partitioning`, `equivalence_properties`, `output_ordering` is cached. This caching mechanism removes recursive calls during getter methods. Also, given `.cache` method is implemented, default implementations of the `.output_partitioning`, `.equivalence_properties`, `output_ordering` works out of the box. <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> With these changes stack depth decreases considerably, Since recursive calls are eliminated in the `PhysicalPlan`. As an example Flame graph for the query 54 is converted from following graph  to following graph . ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> ## Are these changes tested? Existing tests should work <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. --> `api change` -- 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: github-unsubscr...@arrow.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
