sigmod commented on a change in pull request #35574:
URL: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/35574#discussion_r810427748
##########
File path:
sql/core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/execution/exchange/EnsureRequirements.scala
##########
@@ -56,7 +57,23 @@ case class EnsureRequirements(
// Ensure that the operator's children satisfy their output distribution
requirements.
var children = originalChildren.zip(requiredChildDistributions).map {
case (child, distribution) if
child.outputPartitioning.satisfies(distribution) =>
- child
+ (child.outputPartitioning, distribution) match {
+ case (p: HashPartitioning, d: ClusteredDistribution) =>
+ if
(conf.getConf(SQLConf.REQUIRE_ALL_CLUSTER_KEYS_FOR_SOLE_PARTITION) &&
+ requiredChildDistributions.size == 1 &&
!p.isPartitionedOnFullKeys(d)) {
+ // Add an extra shuffle for `ClusteredDistribution` even though
its child
Review comment:
The `if` branch actually means the requirement is not satisfied.
Either adding back `HashClusteredPartition` or adding a boolean into
`ClusteredPartition` seems neater for me, because there're other existing call
sites of `satisfies` and might be more future call sites such that we don't
want to replicate special logic there, e.g.,
https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/sql/core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/execution/exchange/ValidateRequirements.scala#L34-L50
I'd prefer to adding `HashClusteredDistribution` back as it's conceptually a
different requirement from `ClusteredDistribution`. Dynamic dispatching is more
preferable than if-else for polymorphism, in general.
--
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]
