Skip to content

Repartition is being added incorrectly in some cases #4883

Description

@alamb

Describe the bug
I am seeing a Repartition being added incorrectly in some cases in our IOx plans (which then causes resorts to happen, which is a huge deal for us)

Expected behavior
If the data is sorted it should not be resorted

Additional context

The repartition is being added by the https://github.com/apache/arrow-datafusion/blob/master/datafusion/core/src/physical_optimizer/repartition.rs physical optimizer pass
I previously fixed a similar issue like this in #1776 but DataFusion got more sophisticated recently (in a good way). I believe that somehow it doesn't realize that the output of the UnionExec is sorted and thus should not be repartitioned

To Reproduce
My suspicion is that #4714 / 899c86a is the specific code that is causing this change (as the relies_on_input_order, which I added explicitly for this case, is now ignored -- see #4856).

I think the fix is to update DataFusion to be smarter about knowing how UnionExec is sorted in

In fact, looking at the tests I wrote and were changed in #4714

https://github.com/apache/arrow-datafusion/blob/556282a8b6da6cb7d41d8c311211ae49b7ed82a7/datafusion/core/src/physical_optimizer/repartition.rs#L574-L586

You can see exactly that the Repartition and sort have been added

Found while updating DataFusion in IOx: https://github.com/influxdata/influxdb_iox/pull/6483#discussion_r1065433368

Activity

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

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

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