andygrove opened a new issue, #2185:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion-ballista/issues/2185

   ## Describe the bug
   
   With adaptive execution enabled (`ballista.planner.adaptive.enabled=true`) 
at `target_partitions=1`, TPC-DS q61 returns an empty result where 
single-process DataFusion returns one row:
   
   ```
   Query 61 VERIFY MISMATCH: Execution error: result mismatch: expected 1 rows, 
got 0 rows
   ```
   
   Surfaced by extending the TPC-DS SF1 correctness gate to cover the adaptive 
planner and single-partition execution (#2182).
   
   ## Scope
   
   - Only reproduces with **AQE on**. The same query at `--partitions 1` with 
the static planner passes.
   - Does not reproduce at `--partitions 16`.
   - q61 contains no `UNION`, so this appears distinct from #2184 (which covers 
the UNION scan-restriction failures at 1 partition). Filing separately on that 
basis; if root-causing shows a shared cause they can be merged.
   
   ## To Reproduce
   
   Generate TPC-DS SF1 Parquet with `tpcgen-cli`, start a scheduler and 
executor, then:
   
   ```
   tpcds --host localhost --port 50050 --path <data> --partitions 1 --verify \
     --query 61 \
     -c datafusion.optimizer.prefer_hash_join=false \
     -c ballista.planner.adaptive.enabled=true
   # -> Query 61 VERIFY MISMATCH: expected 1 rows, got 0 rows
   ```
   
   Passes with `--partitions 16`, and with `--partitions 1` when the adaptive 
planner is off.
   
   ## Expected behavior
   
   The adaptive planner should return the same single row as single-process 
DataFusion, at every partition count.


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to