-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.4k
[spark] Add point-delete fast path for primary key DELETE to skip the target table scan #8837
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
Open
ZZZxDong
wants to merge
1
commit into
apache:master
Choose a base branch
from
ZZZxDong:delete-point-fast-path
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
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
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.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Can we remove this?
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 — the reason this option existed (driver OOM while materializing the keys) is gone now that the literal path cross joins one small DataFrame per pk column, so the driver only holds the literals of the condition itself.
One consequence worth deciding on before I drop the bound completely: without any limit, the fast path writes the whole cartesian product no matter whether those keys exist. A single pk column is inherently bounded by the IN list, but a composite pk with several multi-value lists is not:
That is a small query that writes 10^9 -D records. It does not fail, it just bloats L0, does the same number of lookups on a deletion-vectors table, and can materialize partitions that never existed. The scan path would only write as many -D rows as there are matching rows in the table.
Three ways to go, happy with any:
totalRecordCount, i.e. when we would write more -D rows than the table has rows — exactly the point where scanning is cheaper anyway.I slightly prefer 3, but if you think the multi-column case is too contrived I will just remove it.