2010YOUY01 commented on code in PR #17467:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/17467#discussion_r2347196158


##########
datafusion/core/src/physical_planner/join_planner.rs:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,212 @@
+// Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
+// or more contributor license agreements.  See the NOTICE file
+// distributed with this work for additional information
+// regarding copyright ownership.  The ASF licenses this file
+// to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the
+// "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance
+// with the License.  You may obtain a copy of the License at
+//
+//   http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
+//
+// Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing,
+// software distributed under the License is distributed on an
+// "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY
+// KIND, either express or implied.  See the License for the
+// specific language governing permissions and limitations
+// under the License.
+
+use std::sync::Arc;
+
+use crate::error::Result;
+use crate::execution::context::SessionState;
+use crate::physical_plan::joins::utils as join_utils;
+use crate::physical_plan::joins::{
+    CrossJoinExec, HashJoinExec, NestedLoopJoinExec, PartitionMode, 
SortMergeJoinExec,
+};
+use crate::physical_plan::ExecutionPlan;
+use arrow::compute::SortOptions;
+use datafusion_common::{config_err, plan_err};
+use datafusion_expr::JoinType;
+
+/// Build the appropriate join `ExecutionPlan` for the given join type, 
filter, and
+/// configurations.
+///
+/// For example, given an equi-join, the planner may execute it as a Nested 
Loop
+/// Join, Hash Join, or another strategy. Configuration settings determine 
which
+/// ExecutionPlan is used.
+///
+/// # Strategy
+/// - Step 1: Find all possible physical join types for the given join logical 
plan
+///     - No join on keys and no filter => CrossJoin
+///     - With equality? => HJ and SMJ (if with multiple partition)
+///       TODO: The constraint on SMJ is added previously for optimization. 
Should
+///       we remove it for configurability?
+///       TODO: Allow NLJ for equal join for better configurability.
+///     - Without equality? => NLJ
+/// - Step 2: Filter the possible join types from step 1 according to the 
configuration
+///   by checking if they're enabled by options like 
`datafusion.optimizer.enable_hash_join`
+/// - Step 3: Choose one according to the built-in heuristics and also the 
preference
+///   in the configuration `datafusion.optimizer.join_method_priority`
+pub(super) fn plan_initial_join_exec(
+    session_state: &SessionState,
+    physical_left: Arc<dyn ExecutionPlan>,
+    physical_right: Arc<dyn ExecutionPlan>,
+    join_on: join_utils::JoinOn,
+    join_filter: Option<join_utils::JoinFilter>,
+    join_type: &JoinType,
+    null_equality: &datafusion_common::NullEquality,
+) -> Result<Arc<dyn ExecutionPlan>> {
+    // Short-circuit: handle pure cross join (existing behavior)
+    if join_on.is_empty() && join_filter.is_none() && matches!(join_type, 
JoinType::Inner)
+    {
+        return Ok(Arc::new(CrossJoinExec::new(physical_left, physical_right)));
+    }
+
+    // Step 1: Find possible join types for the given Logical Plan
+    // ----------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    // Build the list of possible algorithms for this join
+    #[derive(Debug, Clone, Copy, PartialEq, Eq)]
+    enum Algo {
+        Nlj,
+        Hj,
+        Smj,
+    }
+
+    let cfg = &session_state.config_options().optimizer;
+    let can_smj = session_state.config().target_partitions() > 1
+        && session_state.config().repartition_joins();
+
+    let mut possible: Vec<Algo> = Vec::new();
+    if join_on.is_empty() {
+        possible.push(Algo::Nlj);
+    } else {
+        possible.push(Algo::Hj);
+        if can_smj {
+            possible.push(Algo::Smj);
+        }
+    }
+
+    // Step 2: Filter the possible list according to enable flags from config
+    // ----------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    // Filter by enable flags
+    let enabled_and_possible: Vec<Algo> = possible
+        .iter()
+        .copied()
+        .filter(|a| match a {
+            Algo::Nlj => cfg.enable_nested_loop_join,
+            Algo::Hj => cfg.enable_hash_join,
+            Algo::Smj => cfg.enable_sort_merge_join,
+        })
+        .collect();
+
+    if enabled_and_possible.is_empty() {
+        return plan_err!(
+            "No enabled join algorithm is applicable for this join. Possible 
join types are {:?}. Try to enable them through configurations like 
`datafusion.optimizer.enable_hash_join`", &possible
+        );
+    }
+
+    // Step 3: Choose and plan the physical join type according to
+    // `join_method_priority` and built-in heuristics
+    // ----------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+    // Parse join method priority string into an ordered list of algorithms
+    let parse_priority = |s: &str| -> Result<Vec<Algo>> {
+        let mut out = Vec::new();
+        let mut unknown = Vec::new();
+        for token in s.split(',').map(|t| t.trim()).filter(|t| !t.is_empty()) {
+            match token {
+                "hj" | "hash_join" => out.push(Algo::Hj),
+                "smj" | "sort_merge_join" => out.push(Algo::Smj),
+                "nlj" | "nested_loop_join" => out.push(Algo::Nlj),
+                other => unknown.push(other.to_string()),
+            }
+        }
+        if !unknown.is_empty() {
+            let valid = "hj/hash_join, smj/sort_merge_join, 
nlj/nested_loop_join";
+            return config_err!(
+                "Invalid join method(s) in 
datafusion.optimizer.join_method_priority: {}. Valid values: {}",
+                unknown.join(", "),
+                valid
+            );
+        }
+        Ok(out)
+    };
+
+    // Backward compatibility:
+    // If `join_method_priority` is empty, honor legacy `prefer_hash_join` by
+    // setting the priority to a single entry accordingly. Otherwise, parse the

Review Comment:
   It will be noticeably slow for very large joins (e.g. joining 1000 table), 
but I think by then planning speed would be the last thing to worry about.



-- 
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: github-unsubscr...@datafusion.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscr...@datafusion.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: github-h...@datafusion.apache.org

Reply via email to