[SPARK-48922][SQL] Avoid redundant array transform of identical expression for map type by wForget · Pull Request #50245 · apache/spark

wForget · 2025-03-12T03:53:11Z

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

Similar to #47843, this patch avoids ArrayTransform in resolveMapType function if the resolution expression is the same as input param.

Why are the changes needed?

My previous pr #47381 was not merged, but I still think it is an optimization, so I reopened it.

During the upgrade from Spark 3.1.1 to 3.5.0, I found a performance regression in map type inserts.

There are some extra conversion expressions in project before insert, which doesn't seem to be always necessary.

map_from_arrays(transform(map_keys(map#516), lambdafunction(lambda key#652, lambda key#652, false)), transform(map_values(map#516), lambdafunction(lambda value#654, lambda value#654, false))) AS map#656

Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?

No

How was this patch tested?

added unit test

Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?

No

…ssion for map type

wForget · 2025-03-12T07:28:00Z

@viirya @dongjoon-hyun @kazuyukitanimura could you please take a look?

beliefer · 2025-03-12T08:45:43Z

+        Some(
+          Alias(nullCheckedInput, expected.name)(
+            nonInheritableMetadataKeys =
+              Seq(CharVarcharUtils.CHAR_VARCHAR_TYPE_STRING_METADATA_KEY)))


Could you explain why you want remove the CHAR_VARCHAR_TYPE_STRING_METADATA_KEY from metadata?

I just want to be consistent with #47843

@viirya Could you help me understand why remove the CHAR_VARCHAR_TYPE_STRING_METADATA_KEY from metadata?

Hmm, I don't remember the exact reason on the removal. Maybe it is because it brings additional checks or transformation. As it is the input expression used to write to the table, the metadata is useless (because the writer would check on table columns).

beliefer

Overall, LGTM. cc @viirya @dongjoon-hyun

…ssion for map type ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? Similar to #47843, this patch avoids ArrayTransform in `resolveMapType` function if the resolution expression is the same as input param. ### Why are the changes needed? My previous pr #47381 was not merged, but I still think it is an optimization, so I reopened it. During the upgrade from Spark 3.1.1 to 3.5.0, I found a performance regression in map type inserts. There are some extra conversion expressions in project before insert, which doesn't seem to be always necessary. ``` map_from_arrays(transform(map_keys(map#516), lambdafunction(lambda key#652, lambda key#652, false)), transform(map_values(map#516), lambdafunction(lambda value#654, lambda value#654, false))) AS map#656 ``` ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No ### How was this patch tested? added unit test ### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? No Closes #50245 from wForget/SPARK-48922. Authored-by: wforget <643348094@qq.com> Signed-off-by: beliefer <beliefer@163.com> (cherry picked from commit 1be108e) Signed-off-by: beliefer <beliefer@163.com>

beliefer · 2025-03-13T02:53:40Z

@wForget @viirya @dongjoon-hyun Thank you!
Merged into 4.0/master

beliefer · 2025-03-13T03:08:35Z

@wForget Could you create backport PR for branch-3.5

wForget · 2025-03-13T03:13:59Z

@wForget Could you create backport PR for branch-3.5

Sure, I will create later

…ssion for map type ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? Similar to apache#47843, this patch avoids ArrayTransform in `resolveMapType` function if the resolution expression is the same as input param. ### Why are the changes needed? My previous pr apache#47381 was not merged, but I still think it is an optimization, so I reopened it. During the upgrade from Spark 3.1.1 to 3.5.0, I found a performance regression in map type inserts. There are some extra conversion expressions in project before insert, which doesn't seem to be always necessary. ``` map_from_arrays(transform(map_keys(map#516), lambdafunction(lambda key#652, lambda key#652, false)), transform(map_values(map#516), lambdafunction(lambda value#654, lambda value#654, false))) AS map#656 ``` ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No ### How was this patch tested? added unit test ### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? No Closes apache#50245 from wForget/SPARK-48922. Authored-by: wforget <643348094@qq.com> Signed-off-by: beliefer <beliefer@163.com> (cherry picked from commit 1be108e)

kazuyukitanimura · 2025-03-13T04:47:42Z

Thank you @wForget late LGTM

…expression for map type ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? Backports #50245 to 3.5 Similar to #47843, this patch avoids ArrayTransform in `resolveMapType` function if the resolution expression is the same as input param. ### Why are the changes needed? My previous pr #47381 was not merged, but I still think it is an optimization, so I reopened it. During the upgrade from Spark 3.1.1 to 3.5.0, I found a performance regression in map type inserts. There are some extra conversion expressions in project before insert, which doesn't seem to be always necessary. ``` map_from_arrays(transform(map_keys(map#516), lambdafunction(lambda key#652, lambda key#652, false)), transform(map_values(map#516), lambdafunction(lambda value#654, lambda value#654, false))) AS map#656 ``` ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No ### How was this patch tested? added unit test ### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? No Closes #50245 from wForget/SPARK-48922. Authored-by: wforget <643348094qq.com> Signed-off-by: beliefer <beliefer163.com> (cherry picked from commit 1be108e) Closes #50265 from wForget/SPARK-48922-3.5. Authored-by: wforget <643348094@qq.com> Signed-off-by: beliefer <beliefer@163.com>

…ssion for map type ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? Similar to apache#47843, this patch avoids ArrayTransform in `resolveMapType` function if the resolution expression is the same as input param. ### Why are the changes needed? My previous pr apache#47381 was not merged, but I still think it is an optimization, so I reopened it. During the upgrade from Spark 3.1.1 to 3.5.0, I found a performance regression in map type inserts. There are some extra conversion expressions in project before insert, which doesn't seem to be always necessary. ``` map_from_arrays(transform(map_keys(map#516), lambdafunction(lambda key#652, lambda key#652, false)), transform(map_values(map#516), lambdafunction(lambda value#654, lambda value#654, false))) AS map#656 ``` ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No ### How was this patch tested? added unit test ### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? No Closes apache#50245 from wForget/SPARK-48922. Authored-by: wforget <643348094@qq.com> Signed-off-by: beliefer <beliefer@163.com> (cherry picked from commit 2eb50e5) Signed-off-by: beliefer <beliefer@163.com>

[SPARK-48922][SQL] Avoid redundant array transform of identical expre…

4a7dcf5

…ssion for map type

github-actions Bot added the SQL label Mar 12, 2025

wForget mentioned this pull request Mar 12, 2025

[SPARK-48922][SQL] Optimize nested data type insertion performance #47381

Closed

regenerate golden file

623fa57

beliefer reviewed Mar 12, 2025

View reviewed changes

viirya approved these changes Mar 12, 2025

View reviewed changes

dongjoon-hyun approved these changes Mar 13, 2025

View reviewed changes

beliefer closed this in 1be108e Mar 13, 2025

wForget mentioned this pull request Mar 13, 2025

[SPARK-48922][SQL][3.5] Avoid redundant array transform of identical expression for map type #50265

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

[SPARK-48922][SQL] Avoid redundant array transform of identical expression for map type#50245

[SPARK-48922][SQL] Avoid redundant array transform of identical expression for map type#50245
wForget wants to merge 2 commits into
apache:masterfrom
wForget:SPARK-48922

wForget commented Mar 12, 2025

Uh oh!

wForget commented Mar 12, 2025

Uh oh!

beliefer Mar 12, 2025

Uh oh!

wForget Mar 12, 2025

Uh oh!

beliefer Mar 12, 2025

Uh oh!

viirya Mar 12, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

beliefer left a comment •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

beliefer commented Mar 13, 2025

Uh oh!

beliefer commented Mar 13, 2025

Uh oh!

wForget commented Mar 13, 2025

Uh oh!

kazuyukitanimura commented Mar 13, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

Uh oh!

Conversation

wForget commented Mar 12, 2025

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?

Uh oh!

wForget commented Mar 12, 2025

Uh oh!

beliefer Mar 12, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

wForget Mar 12, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

beliefer Mar 12, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

viirya Mar 12, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

beliefer left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

beliefer commented Mar 13, 2025

Uh oh!

beliefer commented Mar 13, 2025

Uh oh!

wForget commented Mar 13, 2025

Uh oh!

kazuyukitanimura commented Mar 13, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

viirya Mar 12, 2025 •

edited

Loading

beliefer left a comment •

edited

Loading