[SPARK-42852][SQL] Revert NamedLambdaVariable related changes from EquivalentExpressions #40475
Conversation
This file contains 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
…ambdaVariables in EquivalentExpressions" This reverts commit 27f4d1e.
HyukjinKwon
approved these changes
Mar 20, 2023
|
Merged to master and branch-3.4. |
|
Thanks for filing a separate JIRA. |
HyukjinKwon
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 20, 2023
…uivalentExpressions ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This PR reverts the follow-up PR of SPARK-41468: #39046 ### Why are the changes needed? These changes are not needed and actually might cause performance regression due to preventing higher order function subexpression elimination in `EquivalentExpressions`. Please find related conversation here: #40473 (comment) ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No. ### How was this patch tested? Existing UTs. Closes #40475 from peter-toth/SPARK-42852-revert-namedlambdavariable-changes. Authored-by: Peter Toth <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Hyukjin Kwon <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit ce3b03d) Signed-off-by: Hyukjin Kwon <[email protected]>
Thanks @HyukjinKwon for the quick review! |
|
Yeah so I just reverted it from master and 3.4 ;-). |
snmvaughan
pushed a commit
to snmvaughan/spark
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 20, 2023
…uivalentExpressions ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This PR reverts the follow-up PR of SPARK-41468: apache#39046 ### Why are the changes needed? These changes are not needed and actually might cause performance regression due to preventing higher order function subexpression elimination in `EquivalentExpressions`. Please find related conversation here: apache#40473 (comment) ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No. ### How was this patch tested? Existing UTs. Closes apache#40475 from peter-toth/SPARK-42852-revert-namedlambdavariable-changes. Authored-by: Peter Toth <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Hyukjin Kwon <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit ce3b03d) Signed-off-by: Hyukjin Kwon <[email protected]>
peter-toth
added a commit
to peter-toth/spark
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 26, 2024
…uivalentExpressions This PR reverts the follow-up PR of SPARK-41468: apache#39046 These changes are not needed and actually might cause performance regression due to preventing higher order function subexpression elimination in `EquivalentExpressions`. Please find related conversation here: apache#40473 (comment) No. Existing UTs. Closes apache#40475 from peter-toth/SPARK-42852-revert-namedlambdavariable-changes. Change-Id: Ia5ce83848956254664d9c51a2f0079bb968f5433 Authored-by: Peter Toth <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Hyukjin Kwon <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
This PR reverts the follow-up PR of SPARK-41468: #39046
Why are the changes needed?
These changes are not needed and actually might cause performance regression due to preventing higher order function subexpression elimination in
EquivalentExpressions. Please find related conversation here: #40473 (comment)Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No.
How was this patch tested?
Existing UTs.