Skip to content

Conversation

@AngersZhuuuu
Copy link
Contributor

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

follow comment #29035 (comment)
Explain for pr

Why are the changes needed?

add comment

Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?

No

How was this patch tested?

Not need

@AngersZhuuuu
Copy link
Contributor Author

cc @dongjoon-hyun @gatorsmile

// Since for join hint [[SHUFFLE_REPLICATE_NL]] when having equi join conditions,
// we still choose Cartesian Product Join, but in ExtractEquiJoinKeys, it will filter
// out equi condition. Instead of using the condition extracted by ExtractEquiJoinKeys,
// we should use the original join condition "j.condition".
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

how about:

`CartesianProductExec` can't implicitly evaluate the equal join condition, here we should
pass the original condition which includes both equal and non-equal conditions.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

how about:

`CartesianProductExec` can't implicitly evaluate the equal join condition, here we should
pass the original condition which includes both equal and non-equal conditions.

Updated

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Jul 13, 2020

Test build #125754 has finished for PR 29084 at commit f8774ec.

  • This patch fails PySpark pip packaging tests.
  • This patch merges cleanly.
  • This patch adds no public classes.

@maropu
Copy link
Member

maropu commented Jul 13, 2020

retest this please

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Jul 13, 2020

Test build #125757 has finished for PR 29084 at commit d24dbed.

  • This patch passes all tests.
  • This patch merges cleanly.
  • This patch adds no public classes.

Copy link
Member

@dongjoon-hyun dongjoon-hyun left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

+1, LGTM. Thank you, @AngersZhuuuu and all.
Merged to master.

@dongjoon-hyun
Copy link
Member

Could you make a backporting PR to branch-3.0, @AngersZhuuuu ?

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Jul 13, 2020

Test build #125771 has finished for PR 29084 at commit d24dbed.

  • This patch passes all tests.
  • This patch merges cleanly.
  • This patch adds no public classes.

@AngersZhuuuu
Copy link
Contributor Author

Could you make a backporting PR to branch-3.0, @AngersZhuuuu ?

Sure,

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

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants