mertak-synnada opened a new issue, #14231:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/issues/14231

   I noticed an inconsistency in how the optimizer handles ordering in certain 
scenarios, particularly involving the prefer_existing_sort configuration and 
the creation behavior of AggregateExec.
   
   ### 1. Background on `prefer_existing_sort`
   
   The prefer_existing_sort configuration, part of the enforce_distribution 
optimizer rule, determines whether the optimizer should use an order-preserving 
RepartitionExec or a non-order-preserving one. If order needs to be satisfied 
above the RepartitionExec, a SortExec is added.
   
https://github.com/apache/datafusion/blob/5edb27678d1b97e74bb83d185166980c901a9b06/datafusion/core/src/physical_optimizer/enforce_distribution.rs#L1279-L1293
   
   ### 2. Creation Behavior of `AggregateExec`
   
   AggregateExec sets its required_input_ordering based solely on its group-by 
expressions without checking any configuration like prefer_existing_sort. This 
effectively makes the ordering a hard requirement.
   
https://github.com/apache/datafusion/blob/5edb27678d1b97e74bb83d185166980c901a9b06/datafusion/physical-plan/src/aggregates/mod.rs#L461-L479
   
   ### 3. The issue
   
   When these two behaviors interact, if the order is being preserved below a 
`RepartitionExec` and above the `RepartitionExec` if there's an 
`AggregateExec`, the optimizer decides to add a `SortExec`, no matter what 
`prefer_existing_sort` is set (because now it's a hard requirement).
   ```
   AggregateExec: mode=FinalPartitioned, ...
     SortExec: ..., preserve_partitioning=[true]
       RepartitionExec: ....
         CsvExec: ...
   ```
   While `AggregateExec` benefits from receiving ordered input, adding a 
`SortExec` in this context can incur a significant performance cost, negating 
any benefits of preserving the order.
   
   ### 4. Possible solutions:
   
   A straightforward approach could involve `AggregateExec` respecting the 
`prefer_existing_sort` configuration before adding ordering requirements. 
However, this introduces challenges:
   
   The `prefer_existing_sort` setting exists at the optimizer level and 
injecting it into AggregateExec may lead to poor design. Also evaluating this 
configuration at runtime feels conceptually incorrect.
   
   Given these challenges, I wanted to open a discussion on alternative 
solutions or design approaches to address this behavior.
   
   Looking forward to hearing the community's thoughts on this!


-- 
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: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to