[Spark] Restrict partition-like data filters to whitelist of known-good expressions #3872
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
chirag-s-db
changed the title
|
@scovich Could you take a look at this PR? Thanks! |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Which Delta project/connector is this regarding?
Description
Currently, we try to rewrite any arbitrary expression as partition-like. To avoid having to repeatedly remove known-bad expressions, start with a whitelist (to be expanded) of known-good expressions that can safely be rewritten.
This change will fix an existing issue where partition-like filters are generated for a non-skipping eligible column. This partition-like filter will throw an analysis exception because these referenced columns aren't found in the stats. This issue was originally missed (and is a difference in behavior vs. partition filters) because partitioning isn't allowed on non-atomic types (or string types), so we missed adding this additional match.
How was this patch tested?
See test changes.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing changes?
No.