[SPARK-52991][SQL][FOLLOW-UP] Revise MergeIntoTable to use lazy val and add a new test#52362
Closed
szehon-ho wants to merge 1 commit intoapache:masterfrom
Closed
[SPARK-52991][SQL][FOLLOW-UP] Revise MergeIntoTable to use lazy val and add a new test#52362szehon-ho wants to merge 1 commit intoapache:masterfrom
MergeIntoTable to use lazy val and add a new test#52362szehon-ho wants to merge 1 commit intoapache:masterfrom
Conversation
…SCHEMA EVOLUTION and add test
szehon-ho
changed the title
| override def right: LogicalPlan = sourceTable | ||
| override protected def withNewChildrenInternal( | ||
| newLeft: LogicalPlan, newRight: LogicalPlan): MergeIntoTable = | ||
| copy(targetTable = newLeft, sourceTable = newRight) |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi, @szehon-ho . May I ask why you propose to move the above 5 lines as an optimization? This doesn't look like an optimization. If this is a simple relocation, I'd ask you revert this change from this PR because this PR's title is Small optimization for ....
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi @dongjoon-hyun thanks for looking at it, yes its a minor cleanup, i noticed the other lazy vals are above the left, right, etc and move these ones to join them. I can revert it tomorrow if its an issue
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Got it. No problem. Let me revise the PR title and description a little and merge this, @szehon-ho. Thank you.
dongjoon-hyun
changed the title
MergeIntoTable to use lazy val and add a new test
Member
|
Merged to master for Apache Spark 4.1.0-preview2. Thank you, @szehon-ho . |
Member
Author
|
Thank you, @dongjoon-hyun ! |
huangxiaopingRD
pushed a commit
to huangxiaopingRD/spark
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 25, 2025
…l` and add a new test ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? Minor follow up for apache#51698 1. Small optimization for MergeIntoTable node (aokolnychyi noticed post-commit that the new states can be calculated once using `lazy val`, as each time rules will copy the node so the state never changes). 2. Relocate `left`, `right`, `withNewChildrenInternal` 3. Add test to validate that default values work in schema evolution case. ### Why are the changes needed? Small analysis performance improvement and increase test coverage ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No ### How was this patch tested? Run existing tests, and the patch adds another test ### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? No Closes apache#52362 from szehon-ho/merge_schema_evolution_follow. Authored-by: Szehon Ho <szehon.apache@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dongjoon@apache.org>
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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?
Minor follow up for #51698
lazy val, as each time rules will copy the node so the state never changes).left,right,withNewChildrenInternalWhy are the changes needed?
Small analysis performance improvement and increase test coverage
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No
How was this patch tested?
Run existing tests, and the patch adds another test
Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
No