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

未关闭
  • 哪里不对？
#72 0 条评论 0 个 reaction 已指派 0 人 在 GitHub 查看

维护者通常 1 天内回复

还没有人认领这个 Issue。

评估

难度
5/5
预计耗时
一周以上
新手友好度
25/100
Issue 类型
功能
描述清晰度
描述清楚
活跃度
活跃
技术栈
rust
领域
backend-api-design, databases, performance

调研方向

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.

由索引模型根据 Issue 内容生成。

描述

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.

主要语言
Rust
星标
33
派生
34
平均合并
4 天 14 小时
30 天内合并 PR
10

环境准备

这个项目没有提供开发容器、Dockerfile 或贡献指南，环境需要你自己搭建：先看它的 README，通用步骤见我们的新手贡献指南。

从这里开始

  1. 先读完整个 Issue，再读项目的贡献指南。
  2. 在 Issue 下留言说明你要接手 —— 这能避免两个人做同样的事。
  3. Fork 仓库，在一个分支上完成修改。
  4. 提交 Pull Request，并在描述里引用这个 Issue 编号。

apache/datafusion-iceberg 的其他 Issue

查看 apache/datafusion-iceberg 的全部 Issue

相似的 Issue

更多 Rust Issue

把新 issue 发到你的邮箱

精选适合新手参与的 GitHub issue 摘要。