[WIP] OperatorStateMetadata validation #14
Closed
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
ericm-db
force-pushed
the
metadata-v2-validation
branch
from
96dbc6d to
9688905
Compare
ericm-db
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 26, 2025
…onicalized expressions
### What changes were proposed in this pull request?
Make PullOutNonDeterministic use canonicalized expressions to dedup group and aggregate expressions. This affects pyspark udfs in particular. Example:
```
from pyspark.sql.functions import col, avg, udf
pythonUDF = udf(lambda x: x).asNondeterministic()
spark.range(10)\
.selectExpr("id", "id % 3 as value")\
.groupBy(pythonUDF(col("value")))\
.agg(avg("id"), pythonUDF(col("value")))\
.explain(extended=True)
```
Currently results in a plan like this:
```
Aggregate [_nondeterministic#15](#15), [_nondeterministic#15 AS dummyNondeterministicUDF(value)#12, avg(id#0L) AS avg(id)#13, dummyNondeterministicUDF(value#6L)#8 AS dummyNondeterministicUDF(value)#14](#15%20AS%20dummyNondeterministicUDF(value)#12,%20avg(id#0L)%20AS%20avg(id)#13,%20dummyNondeterministicUDF(value#6L)#8%20AS%20dummyNondeterministicUDF(value)#14)
+- Project [id#0L, value#6L, dummyNondeterministicUDF(value#6L)#7 AS _nondeterministic#15](#0L,%20value#6L,%20dummyNondeterministicUDF(value#6L)#7%20AS%20_nondeterministic#15)
+- Project [id#0L, (id#0L % cast(3 as bigint)) AS value#6L](#0L,%20(id#0L%20%%20cast(3%20as%20bigint))%20AS%20value#6L)
+- Range (0, 10, step=1, splits=Some(2))
```
and then it throws:
```
[[MISSING_AGGREGATION] The non-aggregating expression "value" is based on columns which are not participating in the GROUP BY clause. Add the columns or the expression to the GROUP BY, aggregate the expression, or use "any_value(value)" if you do not care which of the values within a group is returned. SQLSTATE: 42803
```
- how canonicalized fixes this:
- nondeterministic PythonUDF expressions always have distinct resultIds per udf
- The fix is to canonicalize the expressions when matching. Canonicalized means that we're setting the resultIds to -1, allowing us to dedup the PythonUDF expressions.
- for deterministic UDFs, this rule does not apply and "Post Analysis" batch extracts and deduplicates the expressions, as expected
### Why are the changes needed?
- the output of the query with the fix applied still makes sense - the nondeterministic UDF is invoked only once, in the project.
### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change?
Yes, it's additive, it enables queries to run that previously threw errors.
### How was this patch tested?
- added unit test
### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
No
Closes apache#52061 from benrobby/adhoc-fix-pull-out-nondeterministic.
Authored-by: Ben Hurdelhey <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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?
Why are the changes needed?
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
How was this patch tested?
Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?