Repository navigation
Conversation
A normal ordering keeps a constant whose value differs between partitions (`AcrossPartitions::Heterogeneous`, since apache#23528), so such a constant can lead a normal ordering. `SortKeyWalk` assumed every ordering's head was at index 0 until the first key was pinned, so it treated the constant as the head and did not see the expression after it. A window ordered by `(total DESC, k)` over an input ordered by `[k, total]`, with `k` constant within each partition, then failed `SanityCheckPlan`. Compute the initial heads past leading fixed expressions, as the walk already does after each pin. Closes apache#26762 Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <[email protected]>
xudong963
self-requested a review
November 6, 2026 14:06
40 of 61 tasks
Contributor
Author
|
Wil work on #27191 |
geoffreyclaude
pushed a commit
to geoffreyclaude/datafusion
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 12, 2026
…rdering (apache#27191) ## Which issue does this PR close? - Closes apache#26762. ## Rationale for this change Queries that planned in earlier releases fail with `SanityCheckPlan` when a window's input ordering starts with a per-partition constant or is proven through an equality such as `a = CAST(c AS DATE)`. Across 7,440 generated query runs, `main` has 62 failures on queries that plan on 55.2.0, and this PR has none, with the same rows wherever both plan. There are three causes. In each one, window planning and `SanityCheckPlan` reach different answers about whether the input is sorted: | Introduced by | Example | Why they disagree | |---|---|---| | apache#23528 (in 55.0.0) | The apache#26762 query | Normalized orderings keep per-partition constants, but `add_constants` drops them, so window planning sees `[total]` and `SanityCheckPlan` sees `[k, total]` | | apache#25922 (on `branch-56`) | A window on `c` over a TopK on `(k, a, c)`, with `k` a per-partition constant and `a = CAST(c AS DATE)` | `add_constants` discovers that `[a, c]` implies `[c]`, but an ordering added after the equality doesn't | | apache#26747 (on `branch-56`) | A window on `(k, c)` over a TopK on `(k, a, c)`, where `a` isn't selected | The sort is removed below a projection because its input has the ordering, and the projection can't prove it | This PR replaces apache#27140 and keeps its commit. ## What changes are included in this PR? Start reading at `add_orderings`. It is the decision I most want reviewed, because it makes the optimizer claim more orderings, and a wrong claim means wrong results. | Where | Change | Fixes | |---|---|---| | `SortKeyWalk::new` | An ordering's head skips leading fixed expressions before the first key is pinned | apache#23528 | | `add_orderings` | Discover the orderings a new ordering implies through known equalities, as `add_constants` and `add_equal_conditions` already do, for any key and past the constants an ordering keeps: `[k, a, c]` with `a = CAST(c AS DATE)` implies `[k, c]` | apache#25922, apache#26747 | | `handle_projection_pushdown` | If the input has the ordering but the projection can't prove it, keep the sort above the projection | The failures the first row would otherwise add, when a projection drops a leading per-partition constant | | `RepartitionExec` | Clear per-partition constants before adding the merge ordering, as `SortPreservingMergeExec` does | Otherwise the second row keeps `[c]` from `[k, a, c]` after a merge, where it holds only within each partition | | `SortKeyWalk::is_fixed` | Return early for a column that isn't pinned or constant | The first row made single-key checks about 30% slower | **Who is affected.** Plans with an ordering that starts with a per-partition constant, or that is proven through an equality or a column a projection drops. It can't stop halfway. **No API change.** Discovery in `add_orderings` can fail only on an expression that doesn't match the schema. That implied ordering is then left out, which can cost a sort but not change results. **Worst case.** 4 of the 7,440 generated runs plan a sort that `main` doesn't: a `GROUP BY k, c` over a TopK on `(a, c)` with `a = CAST(c AS DATE)`, at 4 partitions. Knowing `[c]`, the aggregate streams on `c` and sorts on `c` after its hash repartition. `main` picks the same aggregate when the ordering is known before the equality. 392 runs have fewer sorts. ## What is the testing strategy for this PR? - `window.slt` covers each cause, including a merge of partitions above the sort, and checks the plans. Removing any one of the first three changes, limiting discovery to the first key, or not skipping constants makes tests fail, in `window.slt` or in the unit tests for the walk and for implied orderings. A `RepartitionExec` unit test covers the merge. - All SLT files pass with no existing plan changing, as do the `physical_optimizer` integration tests and the equivalence fuzz tests. - A sweep of functions that look order-preserving but aren't found no wrong ordering. Details below. <details> <summary>Generated query runs, benchmarks, rejected alternatives, and queries that still fail</summary> **Generated runs.** Each sweep runs at `target_partitions` 1 and 4. A regression plans on the reference build and fails on the other build. | Sweep | Runs | `main`, vs 55.2.0 | `main`, vs before apache#23528 | This PR, vs both | |---|---|---|---|---| | Per-partition constants: 6 inputs, 3 orderings, 5 projections, up to 12 consumers | 2,016 | 0 | 4 | 0 | | Orderings proven through `a = CAST(c AS DATE)` | 3,120 | 56 | 56 | 0 | | An operator between the ordering and the consumer: joins of each type on either side, filter, aggregate, union | 1,584 | 6 | 36 | 0 | | `head = f(arg)` for `CAST(x AS VARCHAR)`, `ABS`, negation, modulo, `upper` and order-preserving functions, in all 4 sort directions | 720 | 0 | 0 | 0, and no wrong ordering | The results are the same with this patch on `branch-56`, where all SLT files pass as well. Compared with `main` on the runs that plan on both, the rows are the same, 4 runs have more sorts (see the worst case above) and 392 have fewer. **Benchmarks.** `equivalence_properties`, best of 10 alternating runs on a busy laptop, so approximate: single-key checks are 6-12% slower (about 20-40 ns), and window-heavy orderings are 24-33% faster. | Benchmark | `main` | This PR | |---|---|---| | `ordering_satisfy/1_key/8` | 359 ns | 380 ns | | `ordering_satisfy_requirement/1_key/8` | 307 ns | 329 ns | | `find_longest_permutation/1_expr/32` | 306 ns | 344 ns | | `window/4` | 1,543 ns | 1,181 ns | | `window/32` | 7,319 ns | 4,889 ns | **Rejected.** - Having `add_constants` keep per-partition constants fails `test_eliminate_redundant_monotonic_sorts`. - Labelling `lower(g)` as a uniform constant isn't enough, because a constant from an aggregate without `GROUP BY` really is per-partition. - Having the projection leave a per-partition constant it drops out of its orderings, instead of the check in `handle_projection_pushdown`, makes 2 generated queries fail `SanityCheckPlan`: a window over a `GROUP BY` whose input ordering leads with such a constant. - Applying the projection check to every node in `pushdown_sorts_helper` only fixes one more query, and that query already fails on every release, so I kept the narrower check. **Still failing, not regressions.** A window over a `UNION ALL` of two TopKs that have `v AS w` fails on every build I tried, including before apache#23528: ```sql SELECT *, ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY w) AS r FROM ( SELECT k, v, w FROM (SELECT k, v, v AS w FROM (SELECT lower(g) AS k, v FROM t5 WHERE g = 'a') ORDER BY k, v LIMIT 30) UNION ALL SELECT k, v, w FROM (SELECT k, v, v AS w FROM (SELECT lower(g) AS k, v FROM t5 WHERE g = 'a') ORDER BY k, v LIMIT 30) ) ORDER BY r; ``` </details> ## Are there any user-facing changes? Affected queries plan again. This is a candidate for `branch-56`, where it applies without conflicts. --------- Co-authored-by: Andrew Lamb <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5.1 <[email protected]>
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
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.
WARNING: unreviewed AI PR now
Which issue does this PR close?
Details
Rationale for this change
A window ordered by
(total DESC, k)fails to plan with aSanityCheckPlanerror whenkis constant within each partition (for examplelower(g)underWHERE g = 'a'), its input is sorted by[k, total](fromSUM(...) OVER (PARTITION BY k)), andtarget_partitions = 1. The query planned fine in 54.1.0 and fails since 55.0.0.Since #23528, a normalized ordering keeps a constant whose value differs between partitions (
AcrossPartitions::Heterogeneous), so such a constant can lead a normal ordering, askdoes in[k, total].SortKeyWalkassumed that every ordering's head is at index 0 until the first key is pinned, so it treatedkas the head and never sawtotal. The requirement[total DESC, k]was therefore judged unsatisfied by the sanity check, while the window sort removal (which goes throughadd_constants, which drops all constants from the normal orderings) judged it satisfied, and no sort was added.What changes are included in this PR?
SortKeyWalk::newcomputes each ordering's initial head past leading fixed expressions, the same way the walk already moves heads after each pin. When no normal ordering starts with a fixed expression, nothing changes and no allocation happens.Normalization,
output_ordering()and the sort pruning in the physical optimizer are untouched, so the behavior from #23528 and #26455 is preserved. (I also tried dropping per-partition constants from normalized orderings again. That fixes the repro too but makesoutput_ordering()lose the constant, which turns an order-preserving repartition into a blocking sort over an unbounded input inrange_join_key_alignment_ignores_per_partition_constants.)What is the testing strategy for this PR?
leading_per_partition_constant_is_not_a_headinwalk.rs. It fails onmainwith the assertion this fix targets.window.slt.I ran the
datafusion-physical-exprunit tests, thephysical_optimizertests incore_integration, and theorder,union,window*,topk,limit,aggregate*andjoins*sqllogictest files locally.Are there any user-facing changes?
Affected queries plan and run again. No API changes.
This is a regression in 55.0.0 and later, so it is a candidate for a backport to
branch-56.