[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-30147?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

Work on HIVE-30147 started by Ryu Kobayashi.
--------------------------------------------
> Align Iceberg copy-on-write MERGE semantics with native MERGE
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HIVE-30147
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-30147
>             Project: Hive
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Ryu Kobayashi
>            Assignee: Ryu Kobayashi
>            Priority: Major
>
> h2. Summary
> The Iceberg copy-on-write MERGE rewrite does not fully preserve the semantics 
> of the native MERGE implementation.
> The affected areas include NULL-key handling, source-only row detection, SQL 
> three-valued predicate evaluation, and `WHEN MATCHED` clause ordering. These 
> issues should be corrected so that copy-on-write MERGE behaves consistently 
> with native MERGE.
> h2. Root cause
> The current implementation in `CopyOnWriteMergeRewriter` rewrites MERGE 
> statements into a source CTE and multiple `UNION ALL` branches.
> Several parts of the rewrite rely on derived predicates and string-level 
> predicate composition:
>  - `MergeSemanticAnalyzer.OnClauseAnalyzer` derives source-only predicates 
> from NULL checks on target join columns.
>  - `CopyOnWriteMergeRewriter` reuses those predicates for the INSERT and 
> carry-over branches.
>  - Target/source presence is not represented by an explicit join-side marker 
> such as the target file path.
>  - Multiple predicates are concatenated with `AND` and `OR`, which can change 
> their effective precedence when the original expressions contain OR operators.
>  - Later `WHEN MATCHED` clauses are gated with `NOT(previousPredicate)`, 
> which does not implement SQL `IS NOT TRUE` semantics when the previous 
> predicate evaluates to `UNKNOWN`.
> h2. Repeated source evaluation and duplicated execution work
> The current CoW rewrite also evaluates the same source relation and match 
> predicate multiple times. The marker CTE contains separate representative-row 
> and grouped-count scans.
> This can produce inconsistent results for non-deterministic or stateful 
> predicates such as `rand()`, because the scans may observe different row 
> sets. It also adds a second full scan, aggregation, join, and shuffle to CoW 
> DML, and can duplicate the work for MERGE source relations.
> The follow-up design should evaluate the source relation and match 
> disposition once through a shared execution stream, while preserving native 
> MERGE semantics and avoiding duplicated window and aggregation pipelines.
> h2. Reproduction steps
>  #  NULL-key target row is lost or causes a spurious INSERT
> Create an Iceberg v2 copy-on-write table and insert a NULL-key row together 
> with a matched row:
> {code:java}
> CREATE TABLE target (id int, value string)
> STORED BY ICEBERG
> TBLPROPERTIES ('format-version'='2', 
> 'write.merge.mode'='copy-on-write');INSERT INTO target VALUES (1, 'one'), 
> (NULL, 'null-key');CREATE TABLE source (id int, value string);
> INSERT INTO source VALUES (1, 'updated');
> MERGE INTO target t
> USING source s
> ON t.id = s.id
> WHEN MATCHED THEN UPDATE SET value = s.value
> WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN INSERT VALUES (s.id, s.value);The existing (NULL, 
> 'null-key') row must be preserved, and no synthetic NULL row may be 
> inserted.{code}
> The existing (NULL, 'null-key') row must be preserved, and no synthetic NULL 
> row may be inserted.
>  # UNKNOWN matched predicate does not fall through
> Use a target row whose predicate column is NULL:
> {code:java}
> Use a target row whose predicate column is NULL:INSERT INTO target VALUES (2, 
> NULL);
> INSERT INTO source VALUES (2, 'source');
> MERGE INTO target t
> USING source s
> ON t.id = s.id
> WHEN MATCHED AND t.value = 'delete' THEN DELETE
> WHEN MATCHED THEN UPDATE SET value = 'updated';{code}
> The row (2, NULL) must be updated to (2, 'updated'). It must not be lost 
> because the first predicate evaluates to UNKNOWN.
>  # Missing predicate grouping affects unmatched target rows
> Create a target with matched and unmatched rows:
> {code:java}
> CREATE TABLE target_grouping (id int, value string)
> STORED BY ICEBERG
> TBLPROPERTIES ('format-version'='2', 
> 'write.merge.mode'='copy-on-write');INSERT INTO target_grouping VALUES
>   (1, 'delete'), (2, 'keep'), (3, 'keep');CREATE TABLE source_grouping (id 
> int);
> INSERT INTO source_grouping VALUES (1);
> MERGE INTO target_grouping t
> USING source_grouping s
> ON t.id = s.id
> WHEN MATCHED AND t.value = 'delete' OR t.value = 'keep' THEN DELETE; {code}
> Only (1, 'delete') should be removed. The unmatched rows (2, 'keep') and (3, 
> 'keep') must remain.
> h2. Confirmed / observed behavior
> The following behaviors have been observed or identified:
>  * NULL-key target rows can be misclassified as source-only rows when a data 
> file is rewritten.
>  * Target-only rows with NULL join keys can produce unintended INSERT rows.
>  * A matched predicate that evaluates to UNKNOWN can prevent a later `WHEN 
> MATCHED` clause from executing.
>  * Unparenthesized combinations of `ON` predicates and clause predicates can 
> affect unrelated target rows.
>  * Repeated evaluation of the same source relation or predicate can produce 
> inconsistent results for non-deterministic expressions.
>  * Repeated source evaluation can create additional scan, join, aggregation, 
> and shuffle stages.
> h2. Impact / exposure
> These issues affect the correctness and compatibility of Iceberg 
> copy-on-write MERGE statements.
> Potential effects include:
>  - Silent loss of legitimate target rows.
>  - Unintended insertion of NULL or source-derived rows.
>  - Different results from native MERGE for predicates involving NULL or OR 
> expressions.
>  - Incorrect first-match behavior for multiple `WHEN MATCHED` clauses.
>  - Inconsistent results for non-deterministic or stateful predicates.
>  - Increased scan, join, aggregation, and shuffle work.
>  - Behavior that varies depending on CBO configuration.
> This issue is separate from HIVE-30064, which focuses on affected-row 
> reporting for Iceberg copy-on-write DML.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v10.3.26#10030026)

Reply via email to