Github user chenghao-intel commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/8652#discussion_r42954743
--- Diff:
sql/core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/execution/SparkStrategies.scala ---
@@ -268,6 +268,27 @@ private[sql] abstract class SparkStrategies extends
QueryPlanner[SparkPlan] {
object CartesianProduct extends Strategy {
def apply(plan: LogicalPlan): Seq[SparkPlan] = plan match {
+ // Not like the equal-join, BroadcastNestedLoopJoin doesn't support
condition
+ // for cartesian join, as in cartesian join, probably, the records
satisfy the
+ // condition, but exists in another partition of the large table, so
we may not able
+ // to eliminate the duplicates.
--- End diff --
Yes, the comment is stale.
If we restrict the outer join condition as `None` here, then it's more like
a `CartesianProduct`, that's why I put the rule in the `CartesianProduct`, and
more importantly, we'd like to take those 2 rules as higher priority than the
rule in Line 292.
I am totally agree with you to combine the `CartesianProduct` and
`BroadcastNestedLoopJoin`, as the later just a special case of former.
Will update the code soon.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at [email protected] or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
