Skip to content
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

Add an option to avoid grouping hash-partitioning #10257

Closed
Tracked by #10313
NGA-TRAN opened this issue Apr 26, 2024 · 2 comments
Closed
Tracked by #10313

Add an option to avoid grouping hash-partitioning #10257

NGA-TRAN opened this issue Apr 26, 2024 · 2 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@NGA-TRAN
Copy link
Contributor

Is your feature request related to a problem or challenge?

We have run into a an issue in IOx and described here that the Union is converted to Interleave if their input data can interleave. The Interleave's job is to send their corresponding partitions to the right output. If I understand correctly its purposed is to keep data grouped in their same partitions which will be useful if the operators down stream want data in that shape. As the result, it is not useful to push sort down because we do not need/want data sorted in that case.

However, for our IOx use case, even though the input data to Union can be interleave, a Projection above that (See the plan here adds different constants ("m0" and "m1" in the example) and if we add that constant as a column into the output, data no longer interleave even though their output_partitioning says the do. Further more, we do want those data to get sorted and hence need the sort-push-down.

With the opposite needed described in 2 paragraphs above, converting Union to Interleave is not always needed even if data interleave. This ticket is a request to avoid that from happening.

Describe the solution you'd like

After chatting with @alamb we propose to add an option into the config to tell enforce_distribution no to use Interleave at this step

Describe alternatives you've considered

No response

Additional context

No response

@NGA-TRAN NGA-TRAN added the enhancement New feature or request label Apr 26, 2024
@NGA-TRAN
Copy link
Contributor Author

@alamb I am working on this

@alamb
Copy link
Contributor

alamb commented Apr 30, 2024

Closed in #10259

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants