POC: Parse to Merge Logical Plan #15862
Conversation
github-actions
bot
added
sql
jonathanc-n
changed the title
datafusion/sql/src/statement.rs
Outdated
| let merged = LogicalPlanBuilder::from(join_plan) | ||
| .filter(delete_pred.not())? | ||
| .project(vec![ | ||
| Expr::Case(Case { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there a better way to do this, I have not implemented it yet however using a case expression like this would need a case expression for every column that is to be updated. I think it would be better to somehow do the full update to the entire row at once. Is there an expression for this?
datafusion/sql/src/statement.rs
Outdated
| let target_src = self.context_provider.get_table_source(target_ref.clone())?; | ||
| let target_scan = | ||
| LogicalPlanBuilder::scan(target_ref.clone(), Arc::clone(&target_src), None)? | ||
| .project(projected_columns, lit(true).alias("target_exists")])? // add flag for matching target |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is an earlier commit, i just put the a projected column here as a placeholder, I will update the pr later.
| .unwrap(), | ||
| ) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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 into LogicalPlan::Scan and the MergeClauses into 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.
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.
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.
|
Thank you for your contribution. Unfortunately, this pull request is stale because it has been open 60 days with no activity. Please remove the stale label or comment or this will be closed in 7 days. |
2 participants
Which issue does this PR close?
part of #13385
Rationale for this change
Adds AST -> MERGE logical plan.
What changes are included in this PR?
The rationale is that the Merge node will emit a Join plan and case expressions. Both sides of the join will emit a column of null/not nulls to be able to match/not match on each row.