Skip to content
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

Implement physical optimizer rule for common subexpression elimination #12599

Open
andygrove opened this issue Sep 24, 2024 · 5 comments
Open
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@andygrove
Copy link
Member

Is your feature request related to a problem or challenge?

When running TPC-H q1 in Spark + DataFusion Comet, the expression l_extendedprice#21 * (1 - l_discount#22) appears twice in the query and currently gets evaluated twice. This could be optimized out so that it is only evaluated once. I was able to test this by manually rewriting the query.

Original Query

select
	l_returnflag,
	l_linestatus,
	sum(l_quantity) as sum_qty,
	sum(l_extendedprice) as sum_base_price,
	sum(l_extendedprice * (1 - l_discount)) as sum_disc_price,
	sum(l_extendedprice * (1 - l_discount) * (1 + l_tax)) as sum_charge,
	avg(l_quantity) as avg_qty,
	avg(l_extendedprice) as avg_price,
	avg(l_discount) as avg_disc,
	count(*) as count_order
from
	lineitem
where
	l_shipdate <= date '1998-12-01' - interval '68 days'
group by
	l_returnflag,
	l_linestatus
order by
	l_returnflag,
	l_linestatus;

Optimized Query

select
	l_returnflag,
	l_linestatus,
	sum(l_quantity) as sum_qty,
	sum(l_extendedprice) as sum_base_price,
	sum(foo) as sum_disc_price,
	sum(foo * (1 + l_tax)) as sum_charge,
	avg(l_quantity) as avg_qty,
	avg(l_extendedprice) as avg_price,
	avg(l_discount) as avg_disc,
	count(*) as count_order
from (select
          l_returnflag,
          l_linestatus,
          l_quantity,
          l_extendedprice,
          l_extendedprice * (1 - l_discount) as foo,
          l_tax,
          l_discount
  from lineitem
  where
	l_shipdate <= date '1998-12-01' - interval '68 days')
group by
	l_returnflag,
	l_linestatus
order by
	l_returnflag,
	l_linestatus;

Timings (Original)

13.752424478530884,
11.648030281066895,
11.35965895652771,
11.335061311721802,
11.383593797683716,
11.291191101074219,
11.31091046333313,
11.351991653442383,
11.32134222984314,
11.374904155731201

Timings (Optimized)

12.734412908554077,
10.684742212295532,
10.157625198364258,
10.06518030166626,
10.043614149093628,
9.986022233963013,
9.939271688461304,
9.925782918930054,
10.024176120758057,
10.018519401550293

Describe the solution you'd like

I would like a physical optimizer rule in DataFusion for common subexpression elimination. IIRC, we already have a logical rule for doing this, but that does not help for projects that are using other query front ends and then mapping to DataFusion's physical plan.

An alternative option would be to implement this directly in Comet.

Describe alternatives you've considered

No response

Additional context

No response

@berkaysynnada
Copy link
Contributor

We have also added this issue to our todo's (though we likely won't be able to address it in the short term). It would be better to have this rule implemented directly in DataFusion.

@alamb
Copy link
Contributor

alamb commented Sep 28, 2024

@peter-toth and several others have invested significant time making the CSE pass in the logical optimizer fast and efficient

The logical rewrite code is here https://github.com/apache/datafusion/blob/2e274bfbdfc19f11b2951456bb2a48e88733c9bf/datafusion/optimizer/src/common_subexpr_eliminate.rs#L1-L0

It would be sweet somehow to factor out the CSE logic itself so it worked on both LogicalPlan and ExecutionPlan

@peter-toth
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks @alamb for pinging me! I was a bit busy lately, but I'm happy to look into this issue next week or so.

@peter-toth
Copy link
Contributor

Just a quick update that I've started working on this. Will try to submit a PR this week.

@peter-toth
Copy link
Contributor

@alamb, I'm still working on this, but opened 2 prerequisite PRs: #13002, #13005

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants