juliuszsompolski opened a new pull request, #38431:
URL: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/38431
### What changes were proposed in this pull request?
We move the decision about supporting columnar output based on WSCG one
level from ParquetFileFormat / OrcFileFormat up to FileSourceScanExec, and pass
it as a new required option for ParquetFileFormat / OrcFileFormat. Now the
semantics is as follows:
* `ParquetFileFormat.supportsBatch` and `OrcFileFormat.supportsBatch`
returns whether it **can**, not necessarily **will** return columnar output.
* To return columnar output, an option `FileFormat.OPTION_RETURNING_BATCH`
needs to be passed to `buildReaderWithPartitionValues` in these two file
formats. It should only be set to `true` if `supportsBatch` is also `true`, but
it can be set to `false` if we don't want columnar output nevertheless - this
way, `FileSourceScanExec` can set it to false when there are more than 100
columsn for WSCG, and `ParquetFileFormat` / `OrcFileFormat` doesn't have to
concern itself about WSCG limits.
* To avoid not passing it by accident, this option is made required. Making
it required requires updating a few places that use it, but an error resulting
from this is very obscure. It's better to fail early and explicitly here.
### Why are the changes needed?
This explains it for `ParquetFileFormat`. `OrcFileFormat` had exactly the
same issue.
`java.lang.ClassCastException: org.apache.spark.sql.vectorized.ColumnarBatch
cannot be cast to org.apache.spark.sql.catalyst.InternalRow` was being thrown
because ParquetReader was outputting columnar batches, while FileSourceScanExec
expected row output.
The mismatch comes from the fact that `ParquetFileFormat.supportBatch`
depends on `WholeStageCodegenExec.isTooManyFields(conf, schema)`, where the
threshold is 100 fields.
When this is used in `FileSourceScanExec`:
```
override lazy val supportsColumnar: Boolean = {
relation.fileFormat.supportBatch(relation.sparkSession, schema)
}
```
the `schema` comes from output attributes, which includes extra metadata
attributes.
However, inside `ParquetFileFormat.buildReaderWithPartitionValues` it was
calculated again as
```
relation.fileFormat.buildReaderWithPartitionValues(
sparkSession = relation.sparkSession,
dataSchema = relation.dataSchema,
partitionSchema = relation.partitionSchema,
requiredSchema = requiredSchema,
filters = pushedDownFilters,
options = options,
hadoopConf = hadoopConf
...
val resultSchema = StructType(requiredSchema.fields ++
partitionSchema.fields)
...
val returningBatch = supportBatch(sparkSession, resultSchema)
```
Where `requiredSchema` and `partitionSchema` wouldn't include the metadata
columns:
```
FileSourceScanExec: output: List(c1#4608L, c2#4609L, ..., c100#4707L,
file_path#6388)
FileSourceScanExec: dataSchema:
StructType(StructField(c1,LongType,true),StructField(c2,LongType,true),...,StructField(c100,LongType,true))
FileSourceScanExec: partitionSchema: StructType()
FileSourceScanExec: requiredSchema:
StructType(StructField(c1,LongType,true),StructField(c2,LongType,true),...,StructField(c100,LongType,true))
```
Column like `file_path#6388` are added by the scan, and contain metadata
added by the scan, not by the file reader which concerns itself with what is
within the file.
### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change?
Not a public API change, but it is now required to pass
`FileFormat.OPTION_RETURNING_BATCH` in `options` to
`ParquetFileFormat.buildReaderWithPartitionValues`. The only user of this API
in Apache Spark is `FileSourceScanExec`.
### How was this patch tested?
Tests added
Closes #38397 from juliuszsompolski/SPARK-40918.
Authored-by: Juliusz Sompolski <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <[email protected]>
<!--
Thanks for sending a pull request! Here are some tips for you:
1. If this is your first time, please read our contributor guidelines:
https://spark.apache.org/contributing.html
2. Ensure you have added or run the appropriate tests for your PR:
https://spark.apache.org/developer-tools.html
3. If the PR is unfinished, add '[WIP]' in your PR title, e.g.,
'[WIP][SPARK-XXXX] Your PR title ...'.
4. Be sure to keep the PR description updated to reflect all changes.
5. Please write your PR title to summarize what this PR proposes.
6. If possible, provide a concise example to reproduce the issue for a
faster review.
7. If you want to add a new configuration, please read the guideline first
for naming configurations in
'core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/internal/config/ConfigEntry.scala'.
8. If you want to add or modify an error type or message, please read the
guideline first in
'core/src/main/resources/error/README.md'.
-->
### What changes were proposed in this pull request?
<!--
Please clarify what changes you are proposing. The purpose of this section
is to outline the changes and how this PR fixes the issue.
If possible, please consider writing useful notes for better and faster
reviews in your PR. See the examples below.
1. If you refactor some codes with changing classes, showing the class
hierarchy will help reviewers.
2. If you fix some SQL features, you can provide some references of other
DBMSes.
3. If there is design documentation, please add the link.
4. If there is a discussion in the mailing list, please add the link.
-->
### Why are the changes needed?
<!--
Please clarify why the changes are needed. For instance,
1. If you propose a new API, clarify the use case for a new API.
2. If you fix a bug, you can clarify why it is a bug.
-->
### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change?
<!--
Note that it means *any* user-facing change including all aspects such as
the documentation fix.
If yes, please clarify the previous behavior and the change this PR proposes
- provide the console output, description and/or an example to show the
behavior difference if possible.
If possible, please also clarify if this is a user-facing change compared to
the released Spark versions or within the unreleased branches such as master.
If no, write 'No'.
-->
### How was this patch tested?
<!--
If tests were added, say they were added here. Please make sure to add some
test cases that check the changes thoroughly including negative and positive
cases if possible.
If it was tested in a way different from regular unit tests, please clarify
how you tested step by step, ideally copy and paste-able, so that other
reviewers can test and check, and descendants can verify in the future.
If tests were not added, please describe why they were not added and/or why
it was difficult to add.
If benchmark tests were added, please run the benchmarks in GitHub Actions
for the consistent environment, and the instructions could accord to:
https://spark.apache.org/developer-tools.html#github-workflow-benchmarks.
-->
--
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]
