-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.7k
POC: Parse to Merge Logical Plan #15862
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
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Am I missing something or are not using this struct in you code?
Generally I would argue that this struct should be more general, essentially a conversion from the AST representation into Datafusion concepts. Without performing the actual MERGE logic. This would mean converting the
TableFactors intoLogicalPlan::Scanand theMergeClausesinto a Datafusion structs containing the expressions.When keeping the struct more general, the actual MERGE logic can then be performed when planning the physical plan. Since Datafusion natively doesn't support UPDATEs and DELETEs, this leaves more room for extensions to provide this functionality.
But that's just my point of view.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, I didn't fully complete the pull request yet. Currently, the implementation is converting the table factors into a scan that are then combined into a join; the extra flag columns are used to perform matching later on when branching for the INSERTs, UPDATEs, and DELETEs. Do you think just passing along a Scan instead of fully converting into a join would be better?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actually the join makes sense. You'll probably always need to perform it.
I think one issue we're going to run into is that you will need to somehow fork the join node. You will need a stream of record batches for the matching flags and then you will need to reuse the join node to get a stream of record batches for the not matching flags.
This is currently not well supported with datafusions execution model. When you currently use the results of a node you can't reuse them anywhere else.
The case expression is a bit unclear to me. But maybe I just have to try to understand it better. I thought it would be easier to keep the match clauses separate. So that the later implementation can handle them more easily.