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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[SPARK-34981][SQL] Implement V2 function resolution and evaluation #32082
[SPARK-34981][SQL] Implement V2 function resolution and evaluation #32082
Changes from all commits
68fa1a9
27d5a20
8fa2b7b
1edca4a
1607d0e
412f191
f4a3f32
1b94e65
310cdca
57b3c25
de726d0
ee56ea7
91038d1
eeccf6b
0ca1ca5
465737c
68e1001
f25b5e6
c453b64
790d27f
c18715f
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@cloud-fan I think we can also consider adding another "static invoke" API for those stateless UDFs. From the benchmark you did sometime back it seems this can give a decent performance improvement. WDYT?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@sunchao can you spend some time on the API design? I'd love to see this feature!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sure will do. It should similar to the current
invoke
and we can leverageStaticInvoke
for the purpose. Do you think we can do this in a separate PR?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yea
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-35261
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why is this needed? I think that the magic name should be "produceResult" just like the
InternalRow
version so that it is clear what the method is supposed to do.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I thought about that initially, but since
StructType
maps toInternalRow
, we need a way to differentiate a) magic method with a single parameter ofStructType
and b) the default non-magic method. Users can only define the latter in this situation but in Spark we'll lookup magic method first as it has higher priority. This may cause some issue.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ditto, put into a new method.