Skip to content

SortMergeJoinExec double counts join key columns in the buffered batch reservation #27322

Open

Description

@adriangb

Describe the bug

SortMergeJoinExec charges a buffered batch twice for each join key that is a plain column. BufferedBatch::try_new adds batch.get_array_memory_size() and the size of each evaluated join key array. When the key is a column reference, the key array shares its buffers with the batch. The reservation then counts that column two times.

Code: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/blob/34eb6dc5b/datafusion/physical-plan/src/joins/sort_merge_join/materializing_stream.rs#L289-L299

The effect is that a join on a wide string key reserves about twice the memory it holds. This makes the join spill or fail under a memory limit earlier than it should.

To Reproduce

Run this in datafusion-cli (commit 34eb6dc on main). Both queries buffer the same data. Only the join key differs.

SET datafusion.execution.target_partitions = 2;
SET datafusion.optimizer.prefer_hash_join = false;
CREATE TABLE l AS SELECT value AS id, repeat('x', 1000) || value AS s FROM generate_series(1, 20000);
CREATE TABLE r AS SELECT value AS id, repeat('x', 1000) || value AS s FROM generate_series(1, 20000);

-- join on the wide string column
EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT max(l.id), max(r.id), max(l.s), max(r.s) FROM l JOIN r ON l.s = r.s;
-- join on the integer column, same columns kept
EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT max(l.id), max(r.id), max(l.s), max(r.s) FROM l JOIN r ON l.id = r.id;

Observed SortMergeJoinExec metrics:

join key peak_mem_used
l.s = r.s 38.8 MB
l.id = r.id 19.7 MB

Expected behavior

Both queries should report about the same peak_mem_used, because the buffered batches are the same. A key array that is a column of the batch should not be charged again.

Additional context

A possible fix is to charge only the key arrays that do not share buffers with the batch (for example, skip Column keys, or count buffers by pointer once per batch).

Related: #16841 and #22758.

Activity

  1. Kristofferjoha commented on Nov 11, 2026

    @Kristofferjoha
    Contributor

    @adriangb Are you planning to work on this?

  2. adriangb commented on Nov 11, 2026

    @adriangb
    ContributorAuthor

    I have no immediate plans to work on this

  3. Kristofferjoha commented on Nov 11, 2026

    @Kristofferjoha
    Contributor

    take

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Labels

bugSomething isn't working

Type

No type

Projects

No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions