mustafasrepo commented on code in PR #11196:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/11196#discussion_r1663629379
##########
datafusion/sqllogictest/test_files/joins.slt:
##########
@@ -3188,18 +3191,16 @@ logical_plan
physical_plan
01)SortPreservingMergeExec: [rn1@5 ASC NULLS LAST]
02)--SortMergeJoin: join_type=Inner, on=[(a@1, a@1)]
-03)----SortExec: expr=[rn1@5 ASC NULLS LAST], preserve_partitioning=[true]
-04)------CoalesceBatchesExec: target_batch_size=2
-05)--------RepartitionExec: partitioning=Hash([a@1], 2), input_partitions=2
-06)----------RepartitionExec: partitioning=RoundRobinBatch(2),
input_partitions=1
-07)------------ProjectionExec: expr=[a0@0 as a0, a@1 as a, b@2 as b, c@3 as c,
d@4 as d, ROW_NUMBER() ROWS BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND UNBOUNDED
FOLLOWING@5 as rn1]
-08)--------------BoundedWindowAggExec: wdw=[ROW_NUMBER() ROWS BETWEEN
UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING: Ok(Field { name: "ROW_NUMBER()
ROWS BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING", data_type: UInt64,
nullable: false, dict_id: 0, dict_is_ordered: false, metadata: {} }), frame:
WindowFrame { units: Rows, start_bound: Preceding(UInt64(NULL)), end_bound:
Following(UInt64(NULL)), is_causal: false }], mode=[Sorted]
-09)----------------CsvExec: file_groups={1 group:
[[WORKSPACE_ROOT/datafusion/core/tests/data/window_2.csv]]}, projection=[a0, a,
b, c, d], output_ordering=[a@1 ASC, b@2 ASC NULLS LAST, c@3 ASC NULLS LAST],
has_header=true
-10)----SortExec: expr=[a@1 ASC], preserve_partitioning=[true]
-11)------CoalesceBatchesExec: target_batch_size=2
-12)--------RepartitionExec: partitioning=Hash([a@1], 2), input_partitions=2
-13)----------RepartitionExec: partitioning=RoundRobinBatch(2),
input_partitions=1
-14)------------CsvExec: file_groups={1 group:
[[WORKSPACE_ROOT/datafusion/core/tests/data/window_2.csv]]}, projection=[a0, a,
b, c, d], output_ordering=[a@1 ASC, b@2 ASC NULLS LAST, c@3 ASC NULLS LAST],
has_header=true
+03)----CoalesceBatchesExec: target_batch_size=2
Review Comment:
Actually, previous plan was wrong (Another case this new rule helped us
discover), since one of the children of the `SortMergeJoin` doesn't have
ordering: `[a ASC]`. After fix, generated plan was quite different. the intent
of this test was (as far as I can tell) to see order by at the top of the
`SortMergeJoin` can be pushed down through `SortMergeJoin`. Hence, I changed
the setting to preserve this behaviour.
The result change (where sort is removed) comes from the setting change
indeed. However, as I said the plan has changed with the setting `set
datafusion.optimizer.prefer_existing_sort = false;` also. Hence, I decided to
change flag to preserve the intent of the test.
--
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: github-unsubscr...@datafusion.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscr...@datafusion.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: github-h...@datafusion.apache.org
