[SEDONA-233] Incorrect results for several joins in a single stage #748
Conversation
This file contains 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
jiayuasu
requested changes
Jan 19, 2023
| @@ -0,0 +1,48 @@ | |||
| package org.apache.sedona.core.joinJudgement; | |||
|
|
|||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please add Apache License header here.
| @@ -0,0 +1,75 @@ | |||
| /* | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could you please add another test in Sedona Spark SQL to verify that this bug is eliminated?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sure! Hopefully I have time to add it tomorrow
Added test in sedona-sql. Added missing license header.
jiayuasu
approved these changes
Jan 20, 2023
|
Dear Yitao, Sedona R build started to fail since this PR. But the PR is not relevant to the R side, could you please take a look? Thanks, |
|
Hello Jia,
Apologies for the delayed reply! I'll take a look as soon as I can.
I don't have a lot of bandwidth at the moment though, mainly busy with
work, and then helping take care of my 6-month-old before and after work,
among other things... I wonder whether there are other folks such as the
current maintainer of sparklyr who might be able to help?
Also, while we are on the topic of sparklyr: TBH 2 things that always
weighed on my mind while working with sparklyr and sparklyr-related R
packages are (1) sparklyr uses java reflection to invoke JVM methods and it
is so easy to break abstraction with it if one is not careful, and then (2)
it might also run into subtle interop issues with Scala. I don't know
whether there is a great solution to any of those 2 potential issues at the
moment though.
Anyhow, I'll look into this issue as soon as I can.
Best regards,
Yitao
…On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 7:46 PM Jia Yu ***@***.***> wrote:
@yitao-li <https://github.com/yitao-li>
Dear Yitao, Sedona R build started to fail since this PR. But the PR is
not relevant to the R side, could you please take a look?
Thanks,
Jia
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#748 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADC6YVMKKKADUVDXQUDMGLWUAWQPANCNFSM6AAAAAAT62JUUU>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
Kontinuation
pushed a commit
to Kontinuation/sedona
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 11, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Did you read the Contributor Guide?
Is this PR related to a JIRA ticket?
[SEDONA-XXX] my subject.What changes were proposed in this PR?
This patch changes how the deduplication gets it partition id. The previous method of getting it from TaskContext was unreliable. Now it uses mapPartitionsWithIndex. The documentation clearly states that is uses the original partition id. https://spark.apache.org/docs/latest/api/scala/org/apache/spark/rdd/RDD.html#mapPartitionsWithIndex[U](f:(Int,Iterator[T])=%3EIterator[U],preservesPartitioning:Boolean)(implicitevidence$9:scala.reflect.ClassTag[U]):org.apache.spark.rdd.RDD[U]
Deduplication is refactored out of the join judgement into a separate DuplicatesFilter.
Deduplication code that is used in sedona-flink is moved to common.
How was this patch tested?
Unit test added
Did this PR include necessary documentation updates?