[SPARK-16683][SQL] Repeated joins to same table can leak attributes via partitioning giving incorrect results by aray · Pull Request #18697 · apache/spark

aray · 2017-07-21T05:12:19Z

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

In some complex queries where the same table is joined multiple times interleaved with aggregation we can get conflicting attributes that leak via partitionings leading to wrong results because shuffles are not inserted. See JoinSuite diff for example. This patch adds a method to Partitioning that restricts it to a given set of output attributes. This method is then called by operators that generally maintain their input distribution but output only a subset of the inputs.

How was this patch tested?

Unit test based on example code from JIRA and additional unit testing of new method.

aray · 2017-07-21T05:16:27Z

Plan for the example query before the patch (with partitioning as suffix):

*HashAggregate(keys=[parent#228], functions=[], output=[level2#274]) hashpartitioning(parent#228, 5)
+- *HashAggregate(keys=[parent#228], functions=[], output=[parent#228]) hashpartitioning(parent#228, 5)
+- *Project [parent#228] hashpartitioning(parent#228, 5)
+- *BroadcastHashJoin [level1#270], [son#227], Inner, BuildRight hashpartitioning(parent#228, 5)
:- *HashAggregate(keys=[parent#228], functions=[], output=[level1#270]) hashpartitioning(parent#228, 5)
: +- Exchange hashpartitioning(parent#228, 5) hashpartitioning(parent#228, 5)
: +- *HashAggregate(keys=[parent#228], functions=[], output=[parent#228]) UnknownPartitioning(0)
: +- *Project [parent#228] UnknownPartitioning(0)
: +- *BroadcastHashJoin [id#266], [son#227], Inner, BuildRight UnknownPartitioning(0)
: :- *Project [_1#264 AS id#266] UnknownPartitioning(0)
: : +- *Filter isnotnull(_1#264) UnknownPartitioning(0)
: : +- *SerializeFromObject [staticinvoke(class org.apache.spark.unsafe.types.UTF8String, StringType, fromString, assertnotnull(input[0, scala.Tuple1, true])._1, true) AS _1#264] UnknownPartitioning(0)
: : +- Scan ExternalRDDScan[obj#263] UnknownPartitioning(0)
: +- BroadcastExchange HashedRelationBroadcastMode(List(input[0, string, false])) BroadcastPartitioning(HashedRelationBroadcastMode(List(input[0, string, false])))
: +- *Filter (isnotnull(son#227) && isnotnull(parent#228)) UnknownPartitioning(0)
: +- InMemoryTableScan [son#227, parent#228], [isnotnull(son#227), isnotnull(parent#228)] UnknownPartitioning(0)
: +- InMemoryRelation [son#227, parent#228], true, 10000, StorageLevel(disk, memory, deserialized, 1 replicas), Statistics(sizeInBytes=148.0 B, hints=none)
: +- *Project [_1#224 AS son#227, _2#225 AS parent#228] UnknownPartitioning(0)
: +- *SerializeFromObject [staticinvoke(class org.apache.spark.unsafe.types.UTF8String, StringType, fromString, assertnotnull(input[0, scala.Tuple2, true])._1, true) AS _1#224, staticinvoke(class org.apache.spark.unsafe.types.UTF8String, StringType, fromString, assertnotnull(input[0, scala.Tuple2, true])._2, true) AS _2#225] UnknownPartitioning(0)
: +- Scan ExternalRDDScan[obj#223] UnknownPartitioning(0)
+- BroadcastExchange HashedRelationBroadcastMode(List(input[0, string, false])) BroadcastPartitioning(HashedRelationBroadcastMode(List(input[0, string, false])))
+- *Filter isnotnull(son#227) UnknownPartitioning(0)
+- InMemoryTableScan [son#227, parent#228], [isnotnull(son#227)] UnknownPartitioning(0)
+- InMemoryRelation [son#227, parent#228], true, 10000, StorageLevel(disk, memory, deserialized, 1 replicas), Statistics(sizeInBytes=148.0 B, hints=none)
+- *Project [_1#224 AS son#227, _2#225 AS parent#228] UnknownPartitioning(0)
+- *SerializeFromObject [staticinvoke(class org.apache.spark.unsafe.types.UTF8String, StringType, fromString, assertnotnull(input[0, scala.Tuple2, true])._1, true) AS _1#224, staticinvoke(class org.apache.spark.unsafe.types.UTF8String, StringType, fromString, assertnotnull(input[0, scala.Tuple2, true])._2, true) AS _2#225] UnknownPartitioning(0)
+- Scan ExternalRDDScan[obj#223] UnknownPartitioning(0)

and after the patch:

*HashAggregate(keys=[parent#228], functions=[], output=[level2#274]) UnknownPartitioning(5)
+- Exchange hashpartitioning(parent#228, 5) hashpartitioning(parent#228, 5)
+- *HashAggregate(keys=[parent#228], functions=[], output=[parent#228]) UnknownPartitioning(5)
+- *Project [parent#228] UnknownPartitioning(5)
+- *BroadcastHashJoin [level1#270], [son#227], Inner, BuildRight UnknownPartitioning(5)
:- *HashAggregate(keys=[parent#228], functions=[], output=[level1#270]) UnknownPartitioning(5)
: +- Exchange hashpartitioning(parent#228, 5) hashpartitioning(parent#228, 5)
: +- *HashAggregate(keys=[parent#228], functions=[], output=[parent#228]) UnknownPartitioning(0)
: +- *Project [parent#228] UnknownPartitioning(0)
: +- *BroadcastHashJoin [id#266], [son#227], Inner, BuildRight UnknownPartitioning(0)
: :- *Project [_1#264 AS id#266] UnknownPartitioning(0)
: : +- *Filter isnotnull(_1#264) UnknownPartitioning(0)
: : +- *SerializeFromObject [staticinvoke(class org.apache.spark.unsafe.types.UTF8String, StringType, fromString, assertnotnull(input[0, scala.Tuple1, true])._1, true) AS _1#264] UnknownPartitioning(0)
: : +- Scan ExternalRDDScan[obj#263] UnknownPartitioning(0)
: +- BroadcastExchange HashedRelationBroadcastMode(List(input[0, string, false])) BroadcastPartitioning(HashedRelationBroadcastMode(List(input[0, string, false])))
: +- *Filter (isnotnull(son#227) && isnotnull(parent#228)) UnknownPartitioning(0)
: +- InMemoryTableScan [son#227, parent#228], [isnotnull(son#227), isnotnull(parent#228)] UnknownPartitioning(0)
: +- InMemoryRelation [son#227, parent#228], true, 10000, StorageLevel(disk, memory, deserialized, 1 replicas), Statistics(sizeInBytes=148.0 B, hints=none)
: +- *Project [_1#224 AS son#227, _2#225 AS parent#228] UnknownPartitioning(0)
: +- *SerializeFromObject [staticinvoke(class org.apache.spark.unsafe.types.UTF8String, StringType, fromString, assertnotnull(input[0, scala.Tuple2, true])._1, true) AS _1#224, staticinvoke(class org.apache.spark.unsafe.types.UTF8String, StringType, fromString, assertnotnull(input[0, scala.Tuple2, true])._2, true) AS _2#225] UnknownPartitioning(0)
: +- Scan ExternalRDDScan[obj#223] UnknownPartitioning(0)
+- BroadcastExchange HashedRelationBroadcastMode(List(input[0, string, false])) BroadcastPartitioning(HashedRelationBroadcastMode(List(input[0, string, false])))
+- *Filter isnotnull(son#227) UnknownPartitioning(0)
+- InMemoryTableScan [son#227, parent#228], [isnotnull(son#227)] UnknownPartitioning(0)
+- InMemoryRelation [son#227, parent#228], true, 10000, StorageLevel(disk, memory, deserialized, 1 replicas), Statistics(sizeInBytes=148.0 B, hints=none)
+- *Project [_1#224 AS son#227, _2#225 AS parent#228] UnknownPartitioning(0)
+- *SerializeFromObject [staticinvoke(class org.apache.spark.unsafe.types.UTF8String, StringType, fromString, assertnotnull(input[0, scala.Tuple2, true])._1, true) AS _1#224, staticinvoke(class org.apache.spark.unsafe.types.UTF8String, StringType, fromString, assertnotnull(input[0, scala.Tuple2, true])._2, true) AS _2#225] UnknownPartitioning(0)
+- Scan ExternalRDDScan[obj#223] UnknownPartitioning(0)

Note there is now an Exchange inserted between the two top level HashAggregate

SparkQA · 2017-07-21T05:19:09Z

Test build #79822 has finished for PR 18697 at commit b05e630.

This patch fails Scala style tests.
This patch merges cleanly.
This patch adds no public classes.

SparkQA · 2017-07-21T07:04:54Z

Test build #79823 has finished for PR 18697 at commit cd5aa80.

This patch fails due to an unknown error code, -9.
This patch merges cleanly.
This patch adds no public classes.

aray · 2017-07-21T13:34:07Z

retest this please

SparkQA · 2017-07-21T15:55:08Z

Test build #79836 has finished for PR 18697 at commit cd5aa80.

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

aray · 2017-07-25T20:28:22Z

ping @rxin can someone look at this correctness fix?

rxin · 2017-07-25T20:38:09Z

cc @cloud-fan @hvanhovell

gatorsmile · 2017-07-31T02:23:25Z

I will review this next week.

viirya · 2017-07-31T07:01:03Z

I'd like to reword the problem description as the current one looks obscure to me.

Currently we don't care if the output partitioning of an operator contains the attributes not in the output. For example, the output partitioning of Project [b, c] can be hash partition of [a]. It is possible because it may come from:

Project [b, c]
Project [a, b, c] // output partitioning is hash partition of [a]
Exchange hashpartitioning(a, 5)
...

I've noticed this and raised questions about it before. The answer I got is this doesn't do any harm so we don't fix it before.

However, this PR finds a case it possibly causes problem. Like:

BroadcastHashJoin [a, b, c] // now the output partition is wrongly hash partition of [a]...
Project [c] // a isn't in output, but we don't change output partitioning
Project [a, b, c] // output partitioning is hash partition of [a]
Exchange hashpartitioning(a, 5)
BroadcastExchange [...]
Project [a, b] // output partitioning is hash partition of [b]
...

viirya · 2017-07-31T07:23:13Z


+ override def verboseStringWithSuffix: String = {
+ s"$verboseString $outputPartitioning"
+ }


Except for debugging this, do we really need to print out output partitioning always?

This doesn't change anything that is in common use, one has to do plan.treeString(verbose = true, addSuffix = true) to get it. I would argue for keeping it for any future debugging.

viirya · 2017-07-31T07:24:20Z

+ base.createOrReplaceTempView("base")
+
+ val dist1 = spark.sql("""
+ SELECT parent level1


Please fix the code indent.

viirya · 2017-07-31T07:24:47Z

+ // dist1.count() // or put a count here
+
+ val dist2 = spark.sql("""
+ SELECT parent level2


viirya · 2017-07-31T07:57:48Z

A different view to this problem is, in the following part of query plan:

 :- *HashAggregate(keys=[parent#228], functions=[], output=[level1#270]) hashpartitioning(parent#228, 5)
: +- Exchange hashpartitioning(parent#228, 5) hashpartitioning(parent#228, 5)
: +- *HashAggregate(keys=[parent#228], functions=[], output=[parent#228]) UnknownPartitioning(0)
: +- *Project [parent#228] UnknownPartitioning(0)

At the top HashAggregate, when the output is going to alias the attribute parent to level1, the output partitioning hashpartitioning(parent, 5) doesn't change accordingly to hashpartitioning(level1, 5).

If we change HashAggregate's output partitioning accordingly with its output, this query can return correct results.

I think this is also an alternative solution. @aray What do you think?

Instead of replacing original output partitioning with UnknownPartitioning, we should better rewrite it with aliased attributes, so we can keep correct output partitioning and reduce redundant exchange.

aray · 2017-07-31T18:02:10Z

@viirya We could certainly make that improvement. I believe it would be a fairly trivial change to this PR if we were just considering expressions that have the same canonical representation. However for reasons that are not clear to me an alias does not automatically have the same canonical representation as the exprId is not copied (https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/sql/core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/Column.scala#L984). Can anyone enlighten me as to why this is the case?

SparkQA · 2017-07-31T18:49:12Z

Test build #80080 has finished for PR 18697 at commit f41811f.

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

…6683 # Conflicts: # sql/core/src/test/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/JoinSuite.scala

SparkQA · 2017-08-31T15:09:09Z

Test build #81284 has finished for PR 18697 at commit 70a7268.

This patch fails Scala style tests.
This patch merges cleanly.
This patch adds no public classes.

gatorsmile · 2017-08-31T16:07:58Z

+ * attributes. If the partitioning is an [[Expression]] then the attributes that it depends on
+ * must be in the outputSet otherwise the attribute leaks.
+ */
+ def restrict(outputSet: AttributeSet): Partitioning = this match {


We are refactoring the concept of distribution and partitioning in the PR #19080
Could you provide your inputs in that PR first? Thanks!

SparkQA · 2017-08-31T18:12:16Z

Test build #81286 has finished for PR 18697 at commit 0f21237.

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

cloud-fan · 2017-09-01T06:35:16Z

shouldn't we fix ProjectExec.outputPartitioning?

viirya · 2017-09-01T07:15:34Z

If we have correct outputPartitioning on each operators, I think this issue can be fixed.

maropu · 2018-07-23T15:20:56Z

@aray Can you close this for now because it's not active for a long time? (I'm not sure the current master still has this issue..., so you should check it first)

HyukjinKwon · 2018-11-11T03:44:32Z

Let't close this then.

Closesapache#21766Closesapache#21679Closesapache#21161Closesapache#20846Closesapache#19434Closesapache#18080Closesapache#17648Closesapache#17169 Add: Closesapache#22813Closesapache#21994Closesapache#22005Closesapache#22463 Add: Closesapache#15899 Add: Closesapache#22539Closesapache#21868Closesapache#21514Closesapache#21402Closesapache#21322Closesapache#21257Closesapache#20163Closesapache#19691Closesapache#18697Closesapache#18636Closesapache#17176Closesapache#23001 from wangyum/CloseStalePRs. Authored-by: Yuming Wang <yumwang@ebay.com> Signed-off-by: hyukjinkwon <gurwls223@apache.org>

fix via partitioning restriction
b05e630

scala style
cd5aa80

aray changed the title ~~[SPARK-16683][SQL] Repeated joins to same table can leak attributes via partitioning~~[SPARK-16683][SQL] Repeated joins to same table can leak attributes via partitioning giving incorrect resultsJul 25, 2017

viirya reviewed Jul 31, 2017
View reviewed changes

indent code
f41811f

Merge branch 'master' ofhttps://github.com/apache/sparkinto SPARK-1…
70a7268
…6683 # Conflicts: # sql/core/src/test/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/JoinSuite.scala

fix style
0f21237

gatorsmile reviewed Aug 31, 2017
View reviewed changes

HyukjinKwon mentioned this pull request Nov 11, 2018
[INFRA] Close stale PRs #23001
Closed

asfgit closed this in a3ba3a8Nov 11, 2018

Uh oh!

Conversation

aray commented Jul 21, 2017

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

How was this patch tested?

Uh oh!

aray commented Jul 21, 2017

Uh oh!

SparkQA commented Jul 21, 2017

Uh oh!

SparkQA commented Jul 21, 2017

Uh oh!

aray commented Jul 21, 2017

Uh oh!

SparkQA commented Jul 21, 2017

Uh oh!

aray commented Jul 25, 2017

Uh oh!

rxin commented Jul 25, 2017

Uh oh!

gatorsmile commented Jul 31, 2017

Uh oh!

viirya commented Jul 31, 2017

Uh oh!

viiryaJul 31, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

arayJul 31, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

viiryaJul 31, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

viiryaJul 31, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

viirya commented Jul 31, 2017• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

aray commented Jul 31, 2017

Uh oh!

SparkQA commented Jul 31, 2017

Uh oh!

SparkQA commented Aug 31, 2017

Uh oh!

gatorsmileAug 31, 2017• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

SparkQA commented Aug 31, 2017

Uh oh!

cloud-fan commented Sep 1, 2017

Uh oh!

viirya commented Sep 1, 2017

Uh oh!

maropu commented Jul 23, 2018

Uh oh!

HyukjinKwon commented Nov 11, 2018

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

8 participants

viirya commented Jul 31, 2017•
edited
Loading

gatorsmileAug 31, 2017•
edited
Loading