-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 28.7k
[SPARK-53094][SQL][4.0] Fix CUBE with aggregate containing HAVING clauses #51854
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Closed
peter-toth
wants to merge
1
commit into
apache:branch-4.0
from
peter-toth:SPARK-53094-fix-cube-having-4.0
Closed
[SPARK-53094][SQL][4.0] Fix CUBE with aggregate containing HAVING clauses #51854
peter-toth
wants to merge
1
commit into
apache:branch-4.0
from
peter-toth:SPARK-53094-fix-cube-having-4.0
+21
−1
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
…uses This is an alternative PR to apache#51810 to fix a regresion introduced in Spark 3.2 with apache#32470. This PR defers the resolution of not fully resolved `UnresolvedHaving` nodes from `ResolveGroupingAnalytics`: ``` === Applying Rule org.apache.spark.sql.catalyst.analysis.Analyzer$ResolveGroupingAnalytics === 'Sort ['s DESC NULLS LAST], true 'Sort ['s DESC NULLS LAST], true !+- 'UnresolvedHaving ('count('product) > 2) +- 'UnresolvedHaving ('count(tempresolvedcolumn(product#261, product, false)) > 2) ! +- 'Aggregate [cube(Vector(0), Vector(1), product#261, region#262)], [product#261, region#262, sum(amount#263) AS s#264L] +- Aggregate [product#269, region#270, spark_grouping_id#268L], [product#269, region#270, sum(amount#263) AS s#264L] ! +- SubqueryAlias t +- Expand [[product#261, region#262, amount#263, product#266, region#267, 0], [product#261, region#262, amount#263, product#266, null, 1], [product#261, region#262, amount#263, null, region#267, 2], [product#261, region#262, amount#263, null, null, 3]], [product#261, region#262, amount#263, product#269, region#270, spark_grouping_id#268L] ! +- LocalRelation [product#261, region#262, amount#263] +- Project [product#261, region#262, amount#263, product#261 AS product#266, region#262 AS region#267] ! +- SubqueryAlias t ! +- LocalRelation [product#261, region#262, amount#263] ``` to `ResolveAggregateFunctions` to add the correct aggregate expressions (`count(product#261)`): ``` === Applying Rule org.apache.spark.sql.catalyst.analysis.Analyzer$ResolveAggregateFunctions === 'Sort ['s DESC NULLS LAST], true 'Sort ['s DESC NULLS LAST], true !+- 'UnresolvedHaving (count(tempresolvedcolumn(product#261, product, false)) > cast(2 as bigint)) +- Project [product#269, region#270, s#264L] ! +- Aggregate [product#269, region#270, spark_grouping_id#268L], [product#269, region#270, sum(amount#263) AS s#264L] +- Filter (count(product)#272L > cast(2 as bigint)) ! +- Expand [[product#261, region#262, amount#263, product#266, region#267, 0], [product#261, region#262, amount#263, product#266, null, 1], [product#261, region#262, amount#263, null, region#267, 2], [product#261, region#262, amount#263, null, null, 3]], [product#261, region#262, amount#263, product#269, region#270, spark_grouping_id#268L] +- Aggregate [product#269, region#270, spark_grouping_id#268L], [product#269, region#270, sum(amount#263) AS s#264L, count(product#261) AS count(product)#272L] ! +- Project [product#261, region#262, amount#263, product#261 AS product#266, region#262 AS region#267] +- Expand [[product#261, region#262, amount#263, product#266, region#267, 0], [product#261, region#262, amount#263, product#266, null, 1], [product#261, region#262, amount#263, null, region#267, 2], [product#261, region#262, amount#263, null, null, 3]], [product#261, region#262, amount#263, product#269, region#270, spark_grouping_id#268L] ! +- SubqueryAlias t +- Project [product#261, region#262, amount#263, product#261 AS product#266, region#262 AS region#267] ! +- LocalRelation [product#261, region#262, amount#263] +- SubqueryAlias t ! +- LocalRelation [product#261, region#262, amount#263] ``` Fix a correctness isue described in apache#51810. Yes, it fixes a correctness issue. Added new UT from apache#51810. No. Closes apache#51820 from peter-toth/SPARK-53094-fix-cube-having. Lead-authored-by: Peter Toth <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: harris233 <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Toth <[email protected]>
dongjoon-hyun
approved these changes
Aug 5, 2025
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
+1, LGTM.
yaooqinn
approved these changes
Aug 6, 2025
cloud-fan
approved these changes
Aug 6, 2025
peter-toth
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 6, 2025
…uses ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This is an alternative PR to #51810 to fix a regresion introduced in Spark 3.2 with #32470. This PR defers the resolution of not fully resolved `UnresolvedHaving` nodes from `ResolveGroupingAnalytics`: ``` === Applying Rule org.apache.spark.sql.catalyst.analysis.Analyzer$ResolveGroupingAnalytics === 'Sort ['s DESC NULLS LAST], true 'Sort ['s DESC NULLS LAST], true !+- 'UnresolvedHaving ('count('product) > 2) +- 'UnresolvedHaving ('count(tempresolvedcolumn(product#261, product, false)) > 2) ! +- 'Aggregate [cube(Vector(0), Vector(1), product#261, region#262)], [product#261, region#262, sum(amount#263) AS s#264L] +- Aggregate [product#269, region#270, spark_grouping_id#268L], [product#269, region#270, sum(amount#263) AS s#264L] ! +- SubqueryAlias t +- Expand [[product#261, region#262, amount#263, product#266, region#267, 0], [product#261, region#262, amount#263, product#266, null, 1], [product#261, region#262, amount#263, null, region#267, 2], [product#261, region#262, amount#263, null, null, 3]], [product#261, region#262, amount#263, product#269, region#270, spark_grouping_id#268L] ! +- LocalRelation [product#261, region#262, amount#263] +- Project [product#261, region#262, amount#263, product#261 AS product#266, region#262 AS region#267] ! +- SubqueryAlias t ! +- LocalRelation [product#261, region#262, amount#263] ``` to `ResolveAggregateFunctions` to add the correct aggregate expressions (`count(product#261)`): ``` === Applying Rule org.apache.spark.sql.catalyst.analysis.Analyzer$ResolveAggregateFunctions === 'Sort ['s DESC NULLS LAST], true 'Sort ['s DESC NULLS LAST], true !+- 'UnresolvedHaving (count(tempresolvedcolumn(product#261, product, false)) > cast(2 as bigint)) +- Project [product#269, region#270, s#264L] ! +- Aggregate [product#269, region#270, spark_grouping_id#268L], [product#269, region#270, sum(amount#263) AS s#264L] +- Filter (count(product)#272L > cast(2 as bigint)) ! +- Expand [[product#261, region#262, amount#263, product#266, region#267, 0], [product#261, region#262, amount#263, product#266, null, 1], [product#261, region#262, amount#263, null, region#267, 2], [product#261, region#262, amount#263, null, null, 3]], [product#261, region#262, amount#263, product#269, region#270, spark_grouping_id#268L] +- Aggregate [product#269, region#270, spark_grouping_id#268L], [product#269, region#270, sum(amount#263) AS s#264L, count(product#261) AS count(product)#272L] ! +- Project [product#261, region#262, amount#263, product#261 AS product#266, region#262 AS region#267] +- Expand [[product#261, region#262, amount#263, product#266, region#267, 0], [product#261, region#262, amount#263, product#266, null, 1], [product#261, region#262, amount#263, null, region#267, 2], [product#261, region#262, amount#263, null, null, 3]], [product#261, region#262, amount#263, product#269, region#270, spark_grouping_id#268L] ! +- SubqueryAlias t +- Project [product#261, region#262, amount#263, product#261 AS product#266, region#262 AS region#267] ! +- LocalRelation [product#261, region#262, amount#263] +- SubqueryAlias t ! +- LocalRelation [product#261, region#262, amount#263] ``` ### Why are the changes needed? Fix a correctness isue described in #51810. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? Yes, it fixes a correctness issue. ### How was this patch tested? Added new UT from #51810. ### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? No. Closes #51854 from peter-toth/SPARK-53094-fix-cube-having-4.0. Authored-by: Peter Toth <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Toth <[email protected]>
Thank you all for the review. Merged to |
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?
This is an alternative PR to #51810 to fix a regresion introduced in Spark 3.2 with #32470.
This PR defers the resolution of not fully resolved
UnresolvedHaving
nodes fromResolveGroupingAnalytics
:to
ResolveAggregateFunctions
to add the correct aggregate expressions (count(product#261)
):Why are the changes needed?
Fix a correctness isue described in #51810.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
Yes, it fixes a correctness issue.
How was this patch tested?
Added new UT from #51810.
Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
No.