[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-38871?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

Vishal Kamlapure updated FLINK-38871:
-------------------------------------
    Environment: 
*Python :-* 3.11.14

*PyFlink :-* 1.19.1 & 2.2.0

*Java :-* 11

*Tested On:-* MacOs (Locally) & Yarn Flink Cluster EMR

  was:
*Python :-* 3.11.14

*Flink :-* 1.19.1 & 2.2.0

*Java :-* 11

*Tested On:-* MacOs (Locally) & Yarn Flink Cluster (1.19.1 - EMR)


> PyFlink Planner incorrectly propagates constants into downstream UDF inputs 
> when filtering on materialized ROW fields
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: FLINK-38871
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-38871
>             Project: Flink
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: API / Python, Table SQL / Planner
>    Affects Versions: 1.19.1, 2.2.0
>         Environment: *Python :-* 3.11.14
> *PyFlink :-* 1.19.1 & 2.2.0
> *Java :-* 11
> *Tested On:-* MacOs (Locally) & Yarn Flink Cluster EMR
>            Reporter: Vishal Kamlapure
>            Priority: Major
>         Attachments: Screenshot 2026-01-08 at 2.50.40 AM.png
>
>
> I have identified a correctness/performance bug in the Flink Table Planner 
> regarding the optimization of {{ROW}} fields returned by Python UDFs.
> When a Python UDF returns a {{ROW}} type and a field from that {{ROW}} is 
> materialized into a top-level column (using {{{}add_or_replace_columns{}}}) 
> and subsequently filtered, the planner aggressively applies {*}Constant 
> Propagation{*}.
> If this column is used as input for a _second_ downstream Python UDF, the 
> planner replaces the actual column reference with the constant literal 
> derived from the filter (e.g., rewriting {{amountId}} to {{{}'0'{}}}). This 
> causes the downstream UDF to execute on rows that {*}do not satisfy the 
> filter predicate{*}, receiving the constant value instead of the actual data.
> This behavior breaks filter semantics and corrupts intermediate data observed 
> by UDFs. Notably, this issue *does not occur* when the upstream UDF returns a 
> {{MAP}} type, suggesting the issue is specific to {{ROW}} field optimization 
> rules.
> h3. Reproduction Script (PyFlink)
> The following script reproduces the issue. It generates a batch with 
> {{amountId}} values {{"0"}} and {{{}"1"{}}}. We filter for {{{}"0"{}}}, but 
> the downstream UDF prints {{"0"}} for *all* rows, proving that the value 
> {{"1"}} was overwritten by the planner.
> {code:python}
> from pyflink.table import EnvironmentSettings, TableEnvironment, DataTypes
> from pyflink.table.udf import udf
> from pyflink.table.expressions import col
> import pandas as pd
> def reproducer():
>     env_settings = EnvironmentSettings.in_batch_mode()
>     t_env = TableEnvironment.create(env_settings)
>     # 1. Source Data: Row 'B' has amountId="1" (Should be filtered out)
>     t = t_env.from_elements(
>         [
>             ("A", "0"),
>             ("B", "1"), 
>             ("C", "0"),
>         ],
>         DataTypes.ROW([
>             DataTypes.FIELD("transactionText", DataTypes.STRING()),
>             DataTypes.FIELD("amountId", DataTypes.STRING())
>         ])
>     )
>     # 2. First UDF: Returns a ROW
>     @udf(result_type=DataTypes.ROW([
>             DataTypes.FIELD("out_text", DataTypes.STRING()),
>             DataTypes.FIELD("out_amountId", DataTypes.STRING())
>         ]), func_type="pandas")
>     def validate_udf(text: pd.Series, amountId: pd.Series) -> pd.DataFrame:
>         return pd.DataFrame({
>             "out_text": text,
>             "out_amountId": amountId
>         })
>     # 3. Second UDF: Inspects the value it receives
>     @udf(result_type=DataTypes.ROW([
>             DataTypes.FIELD("seen_amountId", DataTypes.STRING())
>         ]), func_type="pandas")
>     def second_udf(amountId: pd.Series) -> pd.DataFrame:
>         # DEBUG: Print exactly what the UDF sees
>         print("\n[second_udf] received batch:", amountId.tolist())
>         return pd.DataFrame({
>             "seen_amountId": amountId
>         })
>     # 4. Pipeline Construction
>     validated = t.add_columns(validate_udf(t.transactionText, 
> t.amountId).alias("v"))
>     # Materialize ROW fields to top-level columns
>     materialized = validated.add_or_replace_columns(
>         col("v").out_text.alias("transactionText"),
>         col("v").out_amountId.alias("amountId")
>     )
>     # Filter: We only want amountId == "0"
>     filtered = materialized.filter(col("amountId") == "0")
>     # Apply downstream UDF on the filtered data
>     final = filtered.add_columns(
>         second_udf(filtered.amountId).alias("s")
>     ).select(
>         col("transactionText"),
>         col("amountId"),
>         col("s").seen_amountId
>     )
>     print("=== PLAN ===")
>     print(final.explain())
>     print("=== EXECUTION ===")
>     final.execute().print()
> if __name__ == '__main__':
>     reproducer()
> {code}
> h3. Observed Behavior
> The logs from {{second_udf}} show that it receives the value {{'0'}} for the 
> second row, even though that row actually contains {{{}'1'{}}}.
>  
>  [second_udf] received batch: ['0', '0', '0'] 
> _(Note: The batch size is 3, meaning the row with ID '1' was not dropped, but 
> its value was overwritten to '0'.)_
> The execution plan reveals that the planner created a {{Calc}} node that 
> forcefully casts the column to a constant before calling the Python UDF:
> Plaintext
>  
>  Calc(select=[..., CAST('0' AS VARCHAR) AS amountId, ...])
> h3. Expected Behavior
>  # The downstream UDF should only process rows that satisfy the filter (or if 
> execution pipelining allows processing, it must see the *original* values).
>  # The planner should not rewrite input columns to constants based on 
> downstream filters if those columns are inputs to Python UDFs.
> h3. Analysis & Workaround
> The issue appears to be an unsafe application of constant folding on {{ROW}} 
> fields materialized from {{PythonCalc}} outputs.
>  * *ROW Type (Buggy):* The planner views the {{ROW}} fields as transparent 
> and applies constant propagation ({{{}amountId = '0'{}}}) _before_ the filter 
> is physically enforced, and passes this constant to the next 
> {{{}PythonCalc{}}}.
>  * *MAP Type (Workaround):* Changing {{validate_udf}} to return {{MAP<STRING, 
> STRING>}} fixes the issue. The planner treats the map access {{ITEM(map, 
> 'key')}} as opaque, preventing constant propagation and forcing the correct 
> execution order (UDF -> Filter -> UDF).



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)

Reply via email to