sigmod commented on a change in pull request #35574:
URL: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/35574#discussion_r812503199
##########
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:
> We can either put the logic inside EnsureRequirements,
> or run EnsureRequirements again inside the new rule
Thanks for elaborating. Ok, it's do-able, but feels more complex than
necessary and maybe riskier than simply expressing a requirement. Since there
has already been a requirement matching framework in EnsureRequirements,
expressing a different requirement seems neater/more natural to me.
--
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]
