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

Introduce Sum UDAF #10651

Merged
merged 50 commits into from
Jun 3, 2024
Merged

Introduce Sum UDAF #10651

merged 50 commits into from
Jun 3, 2024

Conversation

jayzhan211
Copy link
Contributor

@jayzhan211 jayzhan211 commented May 24, 2024

Which issue does this PR close?

Closes #.

Rationale for this change

What changes are included in this PR?

  1. Add AccumulatorArgs to create_groups_accumulator

This PR only introduce Sum UDAF, remove builtin is not included to keep the PR small.

Are these changes tested?

Are there any user-facing changes?

Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>
@github-actions github-actions bot added the sqllogictest SQL Logic Tests (.slt) label May 25, 2024
Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>
@github-actions github-actions bot added the sql SQL Planner label May 25, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@alamb alamb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks great to me @jayzhan211 -- thank you. I left some small comments, but overall I think it looks really nice.

@@ -142,7 +142,7 @@ async fn test_udaf_as_window_with_frame_without_retract_batch() {
let sql = "SELECT time_sum(time) OVER(ORDER BY time ROWS BETWEEN 1 PRECEDING AND 1 FOLLOWING) as time_sum from t";
// Note if this query ever does start working
let err = execute(&ctx, sql).await.unwrap_err();
assert_contains!(err.to_string(), "This feature is not implemented: Aggregate can not be used as a sliding accumulator because `retract_batch` is not implemented: AggregateUDF { inner: AggregateUDF { name: \"time_sum\", signature: Signature { type_signature: Exact([Timestamp(Nanosecond, None)]), volatility: Immutable }, fun: \"<FUNC>\" } }(t.time) ORDER BY [t.time ASC NULLS LAST] ROWS BETWEEN 1 PRECEDING AND 1 FOLLOWING");
assert_contains!(err.to_string(), "This feature is not implemented: Aggregate can not be used as a sliding accumulator because `retract_batch` is not implemented: time_sum(t.time) ORDER BY [t.time ASC NULLS LAST] ROWS BETWEEN 1 PRECEDING AND 1 FOLLOWING");
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

that is certainly nicer


/// Coerce arguments of a function call to types that the function can evaluate.
///
/// This function is only called if [`AggregateUDFImpl::signature`] returns [`crate::TypeSignature::UserDefined`]. Most
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍

@@ -389,6 +410,13 @@ pub trait AggregateUDFImpl: Debug + Send + Sync {
&[]
}

fn create_sliding_accumulator(
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could we please add some documentation here explaining what this is?

Basically I think this is to allow returning a different Accumulator instance that is optimized for sliding windows (e.g. incrementally computing output via https://docs.rs/datafusion/latest/datafusion/logical_expr/trait.Accumulator.html#method.retract_batch

@@ -459,7 +515,7 @@ pub enum ReversedUDAF {
/// The expression does not support reverse calculation, like ArrayAgg
NotSupported,
/// The expression is different from the original expression
Reversed(Arc<dyn AggregateUDFImpl>),
Reversed(Arc<AggregateUDF>),
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍

datafusion/functions-aggregate/src/lib.rs Show resolved Hide resolved
Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>
if fun.to_string() == "first_value" || fun.to_string() == "last_value" {
assert_eq!(fun.to_string(), name);
} else {
assert_eq!(fun.to_string(), name.to_uppercase());
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I wonder, maybe we should treat udf names case insensitive way. What do you think?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

#10695 track the issue to rename name to lowercase

Comment on lines 179 to 182
let data_types = args
.iter()
.map(|e| e.get_type(schema))
.collect::<Result<Vec<_>>>()?;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do we need this section?. It seems that data_types is already calculated at the outer scope.

Comment on lines +164 to +177
WindowFunctionDefinition::AggregateUDF(udf) => {
let new_types = data_types_with_aggregate_udf(&data_types, udf).map_err(|err| {
plan_datafusion_err!(
"{} and {}",
err,
utils::generate_signature_error_msg(
fun.name(),
fun.signature().clone(),
&data_types
)
)
})?;
Ok(fun.return_type(&new_types)?)
}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe we should bury this check, and conversion inside to the fun.return_type implementation for WindowFunctionDefinition::AggregateUDF not sure though.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@jayzhan211 jayzhan211 Jun 3, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I prefer separate coerce_types and return_types given the difference between these two

Comment on lines +197 to +207
let new_types = data_types_with_aggregate_udf(&data_types, fun).map_err(|err| {
plan_datafusion_err!(
"{} and {}",
err,
utils::generate_signature_error_msg(
fun.name(),
fun.signature().clone(),
&data_types
)
)
})?;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Similar comment above applies here

}

fn order_bys(&self) -> Option<&[PhysicalSortExpr]> {
(!self.ordering_req.is_empty()).then_some(&self.ordering_req)
if self.fun.has_ordering_requirements() && !self.ordering_req.is_empty() {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Even if has_ordering_requirements is not introduced in this PR. I think, with the order_sensitivity API. This API is redundant. I think, it is better to remove this API (in this Pr or in subsequent ones).

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree. We can returns None for AggregateOrderSensitivity::Insensitive, ordering_req if others

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should we change the default order sensitivity to AggregateOrderSensitivity::Insensitive. For example, I think Sum would expect AggregateOrderSensitivity::Insensitive. And, probably only first/last, nth value and agg_order would expect other kinds of AggregateOrderSensitivity

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree that, for most of the aggregate functions, AggregateOrderSensitivity::Insensitive is the correct behavior. However, I think the safest default choice is AggregateOrderSensitivity::HardRequirement. Also, as long as there is no requirement, default is not important. Hence, I think we can be strict in this choice.

Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>
@jayzhan211 jayzhan211 marked this pull request as draft May 31, 2024 14:03
Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>
@jayzhan211 jayzhan211 marked this pull request as ready for review May 31, 2024 15:09
jayzhan211 and others added 2 commits June 3, 2024 09:31
Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>
Copy link
Contributor

@mustafasrepo mustafasrepo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM!. Thanks @jayzhan211 for this PR.

@jayzhan211
Copy link
Contributor Author

🚀
Thanks @mustafasrepo and @alamb

@jayzhan211 jayzhan211 merged commit 888504a into apache:main Jun 3, 2024
25 checks passed
@alamb
Copy link
Contributor

alamb commented Jun 3, 2024

Are we tracking the follow on work (to remove the built in sum) anywhere?

Comment on lines +107 to +109
(AggregateFunction::Sum, _) => {
return internal_err!("Builtin Sum will be removed");
}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hi @jayzhan211! I saw @alamb already asked the same question here last week. I'd like to follow-up and check if you have any plans to remove this?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@appletreeisyellow You can checkout main branch it should be removed in #10831

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@jayzhan211 Thank you so much! 💯

@jayzhan211 jayzhan211 mentioned this pull request Jul 2, 2024
findepi pushed a commit to findepi/datafusion that referenced this pull request Jul 16, 2024
* move accumulate

Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>

* move prim_op

Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>

* move test to slt

Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>

* remove sum distinct

Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>

* move sum aggregate

Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>

* fix args

Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>

* add sum

Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>

* merge fix

Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>

* fix sum sig

Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>

* todo: wait ahash merge

Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>

* rebase

Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>

* disable ordering req by default

Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>

* check arg count

Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>

* rm old workflow

Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>

* fmt

Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>

* fix failed test

Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>

* doc and fmt

Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>

* check udaf first

Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>

* fmt

Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>

* fix ci

Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>

* fix ci

Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>

* fix ci

Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>

* fix err msg AGAIN

Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>

* rm sum in builtin test which covered in sql

Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>

* proto for window with udaf

Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>

* fix slt

Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>

* fmt

Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>

* fix err msg

Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>

* fix exprfn

Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>

* fix ciy

Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>

* fix ci

Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>

* rename first/last to lowercase

Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>

* skip sum

Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>

* fix firstvalue

Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>

* clippy

Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>

* add doc

Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>

* rm has_ordering_req

Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>

* default hard req

Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>

* insensitive for sum

Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>

* cleanup duplicate code

Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>

* Re-introduce check

---------

Signed-off-by: jayzhan211 <jayzhan211@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Mustafa Akur <mustafa.akur@synnada.ai>
vgapeyev added a commit to sdf-labs/sql-functions that referenced this pull request Aug 26, 2024
apache/datafusion#10651

Don't know if the built-in sum used to work on intervals, but the UDAF does not.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
api change Changes the API exposed to users of the crate core Core DataFusion crate logical-expr Logical plan and expressions optimizer Optimizer rules physical-expr Physical Expressions sql SQL Planner sqllogictest SQL Logic Tests (.slt)
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants