Github user joseph-torres commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/18790#discussion_r131761258
--- Diff:
sql/catalyst/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/catalyst/optimizer/Optimizer.scala
---
@@ -872,6 +886,25 @@ object PushDownPredicate extends Rule[LogicalPlan]
with PredicateHelper {
pushDownPredicate(filter, u.child) { predicate =>
u.withNewChildren(Seq(Filter(predicate, u.child)))
}
+
+ case filter @ Filter(condition, watermark: EventTimeWatermark) =>
--- End diff --
For filter, the logic has a subtle additional condition. We don't want to
push down filters on the watermark attribute, because:
* they'll be at least as expensive to evaluate as the watermark operator
* partition pruning shouldn't apply since there won't be useful partitions
on an event time
For project, I don't see a rule for UnaryNode anywhere. I might have missed
it.
For limit, I actually removed the rule for EventTimeWatermark that I
originally added, since it does drop rows in some situations.
So I don't think that making EventTimeWatermark subclass UnaryNode would
avoid any of the code in this PR. I agree it seems appropriate, but it also
seems orthogonal.
---
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 infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: reviews-h...@spark.apache.org
