Merge sorted files in IcebergDataSource only when something above the scan uses their order

Open
  • Is something wrong?
#72 0 comments 0 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub

Maintainers usually reply within 1 day

Nobody has claimed this yet.

Assessment

Difficulty
5/5
Estimated time
Over a week
Newbie friendliness
25/100
Issue type
Feature
Clarity
Clearly specified
Activity status
Active
Tech stack
rust
Domain
backend-api-design, databases, performance

Research direction

Read the DataFusion PushdownSort behavior and the discussion linked from PR #55, then inspect IcebergDataSource and TableProvider::scan in the repository. Compare the proposed options against the described SELECT, filtered ORDER BY, aggregation, and sort-merge join plans; completion means agreeing on an approach and validating its behavior against those cases. The issue says the author already implemented option 2(a) and plans to submit it as a stacked PR.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Description

Follow-up to https://github.com/apache/datafusion-iceberg/pull/55#discussion_r4235376704.

With iceberg.execution.preserve_data_ordering on, TableProvider::scan lists the data files, and if at most iceberg.execution.max_merge_files_per_partition share a sort order, IcebergDataSource reports it and open() k-way merges one reader per file, with every file open, on one thread. It merges even when nothing above the scan uses the order:

  • a SELECT *, a GROUP BY on another column, or a hash join;
  • ORDER BY id DESC, which keeps its SortExec above the merge;
  • ORDER BY id on a nullable key, because Iceberg sorts ascending fields NULLS FIRST by default while DataFusion's ORDER BY means NULLS LAST, so the sort stays and we pay for both.

TableProvider::scan can't tell whether anything above will use the order.

What DataFusion 55 offers. The PushdownSort rule (on by default through datafusion.optimizer.enable_sort_pushdown) offers each SortExec's order to its input through try_pushdown_sort. Exact removes the sort, Inexact keeps it over a rebuilt input, and Unsupported changes nothing. DataSourceExec passes the request to the source, and CooperativeExec, ProjectionExec and order-keeping RepartitionExec pass it down, but FilterExec doesn't, so a WHERE clause blocks it. The call is synchronous, so answering it means keeping the file listing in TableProvider::scan.

Sort-merge joins. As @mbutrovich pointed out, a design that merges only after an Exact answer can lose the join case that test_sorted_scan_removes_sort_from_sort_merge_join checks, because RepartitionExec::try_pushdown_sort returns Unsupported when the repartition doesn't keep its input's order. Measured at target_partitions = 4 with #55: an unfiltered sort-merge join keeps both scans' order and needs no SortExec, because the hash repartition over a single-partition scan keeps its input's order. With a WHERE on a join side, DataFusion adds a FilterExec and a round-robin repartition under the hash repartition, which loses the order. That side gets a SortExec while its scan still merges. The results are correct, but the merge is wasted, and pushdown can't remove it. Sorted aggregation never gets a SortExec, so pushdown can't help it either.

Options

  1. Report no order, implement try_pushdown_sort, and merge only after an Exact answer. This fixes every case above, but loses filtered ORDER BY, sorted aggregation, and filtered or multi-partition join inputs.
  2. Keep reporting the order, and add cheap paths:
    (a) when the sort above shares no leading column with the files' order, answer Inexact with a source that reads the files without merging. This is safe because the sort stays, and it fixes DESC and nullable ORDER BY id.
    (b) read files back to back instead of merging when their key ranges don't overlap (#71).
    Neither helps a SELECT * with no sort.
  3. Ship a PhysicalOptimizerRule that turns merging off on scans whose order nothing relies on. It must run before OutputRequirements removal, so users would have to rebuild the rule list, which is new public API.
  4. Change DataFusion: try_pushdown_sort on FilterExec, or a general "order is consumed" signal.

Proposal. Do 2(a) now, 2(b) once iceberg-rust has per-file bounds, and choose between 1 and 3 from measured plans. Feedback on that choice is very welcome.

I'm working on this. I have 2(a) implemented and will open it as a PR stacked on #55, and I'll drive the discussion for the rest.

Dominant language
Rust
Stars
30
Forks
30
Avg merge
3d 19h
Merged PRs (30d)
15

Getting set up

This project ships no dev container, Dockerfile or contributing guide, so setting up is up to you: start from its README, and see our first-contribution guide for the general steps.

First steps

  1. Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
  2. Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
  3. Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
  4. Open a pull request that references the issue number.

More from apache/datafusion-iceberg

All issues in apache/datafusion-iceberg

Similar issues

More Rust issues

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.