[SPARK-49966][SQL] Codegen Support for JsonToStructs(from_json)
#48466
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
MaxGekk
reviewed
Oct 15, 2024
| code""" | ||
| |${eval.code} | ||
| |$resultType $resultTerm = ($resultType) $refEvaluator.evaluate( | ||
| | ${eval.isNull} ? null : ${eval.value}); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do you need this check? seems like evaluate() does this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, it's redundant. I have already removed it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The code generated by an example is roughly like this:
- Before
/* 031 */ boolean localtablescan_isNull_0 = localtablescan_row_0.isNullAt(0);
/* 032 */ UTF8String localtablescan_value_0 = localtablescan_isNull_0 ?
/* 033 */ null : (localtablescan_row_0.getUTF8String(0));
/* 034 */ InternalRow project_result_0 = (InternalRow) ((org.apache.spark.sql.catalyst.expressions.json.JsonToStructsEvaluator) references[1] /* evaluator */).evaluate(
/* 035 */ localtablescan_isNull_0 ? null : localtablescan_value_0);
/* 036 */ boolean project_isNull_0 = project_result_0 == null;
/* 037 */ InternalRow project_value_0 = null;
/* 038 */ if (!project_isNull_0) {
/* 039 */ project_value_0 = project_result_0;
/* 040 */ }
/* 041 */ project_mutableStateArray_0[0].reset();
/* 042 */
/* 043 */ project_mutableStateArray_0[0].zeroOutNullBytes();- After
/* 031 */ boolean localtablescan_isNull_0 = localtablescan_row_0.isNullAt(0);
/* 032 */ UTF8String localtablescan_value_0 = localtablescan_isNull_0 ?
/* 033 */ null : (localtablescan_row_0.getUTF8String(0));
/* 034 */ InternalRow project_result_0 = (InternalRow) ((org.apache.spark.sql.catalyst.expressions.json.JsonToStructsEvaluator) references[1] /* evaluator */).evaluate(localtablescan_value_0);
/* 035 */ boolean project_isNull_0 = project_result_0 == null;
/* 036 */ InternalRow project_value_0 = null;
/* 037 */ if (!project_isNull_0) {
/* 038 */ project_value_0 = project_result_0;
/* 039 */ }
/* 040 */ project_mutableStateArray_0[0].reset();
/* 041 */
/* 042 */ project_mutableStateArray_0[0].zeroOutNullBytes();- Obviously unnecessary
- So it has been removed.
MaxGekk
approved these changes
Oct 16, 2024
|
+1, LGTM. Merging to master. |
cloud-fan
reviewed
Oct 16, 2024
|
|
||
| override def nullSafeEval(json: Any): Any = evaluator.evaluate(json.asInstanceOf[UTF8String]) | ||
|
|
||
| override def doGenCode(ctx: CodegenContext, ev: ExprCode): ExprCode = { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is it possible to use Invoke with Literal(new JsonToStructsEvaluator(...), ObjectType(...)) to rewrite the expression?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let me investigate it.
MaxGekk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 18, 2024
…on`) ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? The pr aims to use `Invoke` to implement `JsonToStructs`(`from_json`). ### Why are the changes needed? Based on cloud-fan's suggestion, I believe that implementing `JsonToStructs`(`from_json`) with `Invoke` can greatly simplify the code. #48466 (comment) ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No. ### How was this patch tested? Update existed UT. ### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? No. Closes #48509 from panbingkun/SPARK-49966_FOLLOWUP. Authored-by: panbingkun <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Max Gekk <[email protected]>
himadripal
pushed a commit
to himadripal/spark
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 19, 2024
### What changes were proposed in this pull request? The pr aims to add `Codegen` Support for `JsonToStructs`(`from_json`). ### Why are the changes needed? - improve codegen coverage. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No. ### How was this patch tested? Pass GA & Existed UT (eg: JsonFunctionsSuite#`*from_json*`) ### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? No. Closes apache#48466 from panbingkun/SPARK-49966. Authored-by: panbingkun <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Max Gekk <[email protected]>
himadripal
pushed a commit
to himadripal/spark
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 19, 2024
…on`) ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? The pr aims to use `Invoke` to implement `JsonToStructs`(`from_json`). ### Why are the changes needed? Based on cloud-fan's suggestion, I believe that implementing `JsonToStructs`(`from_json`) with `Invoke` can greatly simplify the code. apache#48466 (comment) ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No. ### How was this patch tested? Update existed UT. ### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? No. Closes apache#48509 from panbingkun/SPARK-49966_FOLLOWUP. Authored-by: panbingkun <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Max Gekk <[email protected]>
|
I found that this one has made the SubExprEliminationBenchmark unexecutable.
then @panbingkun Do you have time to take a look at this issue? Thanks ~ also cc @MaxGekk and @cloud-fan |
|
If |
|
Thank you for noticing this issue, let me investigate it. |
It seems that there is a performance regression in the |
|
Thank you for reporting, @LuciferYang . |
|
The number of data rows in this benchmark is a bit small (100 rows). Let me first verify the performance data locally with more data rows. |
|
I think it's because there seem to be some issues with the |
LuciferYang
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 8, 2025
### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This PR aims to regenerate benchmark results as a new baseline before cutting branch-4.0. ### Why are the changes needed? To make the result up-to-date and make it easy to validate the regression. - `SubExprEliminationBenchmark` benchmark result is not included because it's broken currently. - #48466 (comment) ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No. ### How was this patch tested? Manual review. ### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? No. Closes #49409 from dongjoon-hyun/bm_20250107. Authored-by: Dongjoon Hyun <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: yangjie01 <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
The pr aims to add
CodegenSupport forJsonToStructs(from_json).Why are the changes needed?
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No.
How was this patch tested?
Pass GA & Existed UT (eg: JsonFunctionsSuite#
*from_json*)Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
No.