You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to github@datafusion.apache.org by "kosiew (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org> on 2026/05/06 05:23:11 UTC
[PR] Preserve recursive CTE static schema with plan-time schema alignment [datafusion]
kosiew opened a new pull request, #22037:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/22037
## Which issue does this PR close?
* Closes #22034.
## Rationale for this change
`RecursiveQueryExec` widened recursive CTE output nullability by reconciling the static and recursive term schemas. This caused the physical schema to diverge from the logical/static CTE schema and forced valid SQL such as `0 AS level` to be rewritten as nullable expressions like `SUM(0) AS level`.
This change preserves the declared recursive CTE schema by treating the static/anchor term schema as authoritative and aligning the recursive term to that schema during plan construction.
## What changes are included in this PR?
* Added `align_plan_to_schema`, a higher-level plan-time schema alignment helper that guarantees the resulting plan advertises the expected schema exactly.
* Kept `project_plan_to_schema` as the narrower projection-based helper and refactored shared validation into `validate_schema_alignment`.
* Added `SchemaAlignExec`, an execution-plan adapter that:
* advertises the expected schema from plan properties
* preserves positional column values
* rebinds emitted `RecordBatch` schemas inside the adapter
* validates column count, data types, field metadata, and schema metadata
* Updated `RecursiveQueryExec::try_new` to:
* use the static term schema as the recursive CTE output schema
* align the recursive term with `align_plan_to_schema`
* remove recursive output schema widening logic
* Restored the recursive CTE SLT coverage from `SUM(0) AS level` back to `0 AS level`.
## Are these changes tested?
Yes.
Added and updated tests covering:
* `align_plan_to_schema`:
* exact schema returns unchanged plan
* rename-only alignment uses `ProjectionExec`
* nullable input to non-null expected schema uses `SchemaAlignExec`
* column count mismatch errors
* type mismatch errors
* field metadata mismatch errors
* schema metadata mismatch errors
* `project_plan_to_schema`:
* schema match passthrough
* nullability widening
* nullability narrowing rejection
* metadata mismatch validation
* `RecursiveQueryExec`:
* recursive term projection alignment
* preservation of the static nullability contract
* recursive term schema matches the static schema after construction
* Restored SQL logic test coverage in `cte.slt` using `0 AS level`.
Validated with:
```bash
cargo test -p datafusion-physical-plan recursive_query_exec
cargo test -p datafusion-physical-plan project_plan_to_schema
cargo test -p datafusion-sqllogictest --test sqllogictests -- cte
```
## Are there any user-facing changes?
Yes.
Recursive CTEs now preserve the declared/static schema instead of widening nullability based on recursive expressions. Existing valid SQL such as:
```sql
0 AS level
```
continues to work without requiring nullable rewrites like:
```sql
SUM(0) AS level
```
## LLM-generated code disclosure
This PR includes LLM-generated code and comments. All LLM-generated content has been manually reviewed and tested.
--
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-unsubscribe@datafusion.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscribe@datafusion.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: github-help@datafusion.apache.org
Re: [PR] Preserve recursive CTE nullability across logical and physical planning [datafusion]
Posted by "kosiew (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
kosiew commented on PR #22037:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/22037#issuecomment-4448276807
show benchmark queue
--
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-unsubscribe@datafusion.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscribe@datafusion.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: github-help@datafusion.apache.org
Re: [PR] Widen recursive CTE logical schema nullability [datafusion]
Posted by "github-actions[bot] (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
github-actions[bot] commented on PR #22037:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/22037#issuecomment-4417029939
<!-- semver-check-comment -->
Thank you for opening this pull request!
Reviewer note: [cargo-semver-checks](https://github.com/obi1kenobi/cargo-semver-checks) reported the current version number is not SemVer-compatible with the changes in this pull request (compared against the base branch).
<details>
<summary>Details</summary>
```
Cloning apache/main
Building datafusion v53.1.0 (current)
Built [ 83.753s] (current)
Parsing datafusion v53.1.0 (current)
Parsed [ 0.035s] (current)
Building datafusion v53.1.0 (baseline)
Built [ 81.922s] (baseline)
Parsing datafusion v53.1.0 (baseline)
Parsed [ 0.034s] (baseline)
Checking datafusion v53.1.0 -> v53.1.0 (no change; assume patch)
Checked [ 0.634s] 222 checks: 222 pass, 30 skip
Summary no semver update required
Finished [ 168.285s] datafusion
Building datafusion-expr v53.1.0 (current)
Built [ 26.552s] (current)
Parsing datafusion-expr v53.1.0 (current)
Parsed [ 0.072s] (current)
Building datafusion-expr v53.1.0 (baseline)
Built [ 26.472s] (baseline)
Parsing datafusion-expr v53.1.0 (baseline)
Parsed [ 0.071s] (baseline)
Checking datafusion-expr v53.1.0 -> v53.1.0 (no change; assume patch)
Checked [ 1.087s] 222 checks: 221 pass, 1 fail, 0 warn, 30 skip
--- failure constructible_struct_adds_field: externally-constructible struct adds field ---
Description:
A pub struct constructible with a struct literal has a new pub field. Existing struct literals must be updated to include the new field.
ref: https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/expressions/struct-expr.html
impl: https://github.com/obi1kenobi/cargo-semver-checks/tree/v0.47.0/src/lints/constructible_struct_adds_field.ron
Failed in:
field RecursiveQuery.schema in /home/runner/work/datafusion/datafusion/datafusion/expr/src/logical_plan/plan.rs:2257
field RecursiveQuery.schema in /home/runner/work/datafusion/datafusion/datafusion/expr/src/logical_plan/plan.rs:2257
Summary semver requires new major version: 1 major and 0 minor checks failed
Finished [ 55.310s] datafusion-expr
Building datafusion-physical-plan v53.1.0 (current)
Built [ 33.798s] (current)
Parsing datafusion-physical-plan v53.1.0 (current)
Parsed [ 0.123s] (current)
Building datafusion-physical-plan v53.1.0 (baseline)
Built [ 33.175s] (baseline)
Parsing datafusion-physical-plan v53.1.0 (baseline)
Parsed [ 0.132s] (baseline)
Checking datafusion-physical-plan v53.1.0 -> v53.1.0 (no change; assume patch)
Checked [ 0.606s] 222 checks: 221 pass, 1 fail, 0 warn, 30 skip
--- failure method_parameter_count_changed: pub method parameter count changed ---
Description:
A publicly-visible method now takes a different number of parameters, not counting the receiver (self) parameter.
ref: https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/semver.html#fn-change-arity
impl: https://github.com/obi1kenobi/cargo-semver-checks/tree/v0.47.0/src/lints/method_parameter_count_changed.ron
Failed in:
datafusion_physical_plan::recursive_query::RecursiveQueryExec::try_new takes 4 parameters in /home/runner/work/datafusion/datafusion/target/semver-checks/git-apache_main/a365a0bdcd6b40d46b64850084613a7c5029cb42/datafusion/physical-plan/src/recursive_query.rs:85, but now takes 5 parameters in /home/runner/work/datafusion/datafusion/datafusion/physical-plan/src/recursive_query.rs:86
Summary semver requires new major version: 1 major and 0 minor checks failed
Finished [ 69.117s] datafusion-physical-plan
Building datafusion-proto v53.1.0 (current)
Built [ 55.211s] (current)
Parsing datafusion-proto v53.1.0 (current)
Parsed [ 0.134s] (current)
Building datafusion-proto v53.1.0 (baseline)
Built [ 55.328s] (baseline)
Parsing datafusion-proto v53.1.0 (baseline)
Parsed [ 0.137s] (baseline)
Checking datafusion-proto v53.1.0 -> v53.1.0 (no change; assume patch)
Checked [ 1.678s] 222 checks: 222 pass, 30 skip
Summary no semver update required
Finished [ 114.669s] datafusion-proto
Building datafusion-sql v53.1.0 (current)
Built [ 40.793s] (current)
Parsing datafusion-sql v53.1.0 (current)
Parsed [ 0.030s] (current)
Building datafusion-sql v53.1.0 (baseline)
Built [ 40.409s] (baseline)
Parsing datafusion-sql v53.1.0 (baseline)
Parsed [ 0.031s] (baseline)
Checking datafusion-sql v53.1.0 -> v53.1.0 (no change; assume patch)
Checked [ 0.260s] 222 checks: 222 pass, 30 skip
Summary no semver update required
Finished [ 82.733s] datafusion-sql
Building datafusion-sqllogictest v53.1.0 (current)
Built [ 135.082s] (current)
Parsing datafusion-sqllogictest v53.1.0 (current)
Parsed [ 0.021s] (current)
Building datafusion-sqllogictest v53.1.0 (baseline)
Built [ 135.509s] (baseline)
Parsing datafusion-sqllogictest v53.1.0 (baseline)
Parsed [ 0.022s] (baseline)
Checking datafusion-sqllogictest v53.1.0 -> v53.1.0 (no change; assume patch)
Checked [ 0.084s] 222 checks: 222 pass, 30 skip
Summary no semver update required
Finished [ 275.097s] datafusion-sqllogictest
```
</details>
<!-- semver-check-comment -->
--
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-unsubscribe@datafusion.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscribe@datafusion.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: github-help@datafusion.apache.org
Re: [PR] Preserve recursive CTE nullability across logical and physical planning [datafusion]
Posted by "neilconway (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
neilconway commented on PR #22037:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/22037#issuecomment-4535607660
@kosiew Before I review this again, have you considered my earlier suggestions to follow an approach here that is more similar to how nullability analysis works for union? The current approach seems unnecessarily complicated to me.
--
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-unsubscribe@datafusion.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscribe@datafusion.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: github-help@datafusion.apache.org
Re: [PR] Preserve recursive CTE nullability across logical and physical planning [datafusion]
Posted by "adriangbot (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
adriangbot commented on PR #22037:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/22037#issuecomment-4517741059
🤖 Criterion benchmark completed (GKE) | [trigger](https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/22037#issuecomment-4517191672)
**Instance:** `c4a-highmem-16` (12 vCPU / 65 GiB)
<details><summary>CPU Details (lscpu)</summary>
```
Architecture: aarch64
CPU op-mode(s): 64-bit
Byte Order: Little Endian
CPU(s): 16
On-line CPU(s) list: 0-15
Vendor ID: ARM
Model name: Neoverse-V2
Model: 1
Thread(s) per core: 1
Core(s) per cluster: 16
Socket(s): -
Cluster(s): 1
Stepping: r0p1
BogoMIPS: 2000.00
Flags: fp asimd evtstrm aes pmull sha1 sha2 crc32 atomics fphp asimdhp cpuid asimdrdm jscvt fcma lrcpc dcpop sha3 sm3 sm4 asimddp sha512 sve asimdfhm dit uscat ilrcpc flagm sb paca pacg dcpodp sve2 sveaes svepmull svebitperm svesha3 svesm4 flagm2 frint svei8mm svebf16 i8mm bf16 dgh rng bti
L1d cache: 1 MiB (16 instances)
L1i cache: 1 MiB (16 instances)
L2 cache: 32 MiB (16 instances)
L3 cache: 80 MiB (1 instance)
NUMA node(s): 1
NUMA node0 CPU(s): 0-15
Vulnerability Gather data sampling: Not affected
Vulnerability Indirect target selection: Not affected
Vulnerability Itlb multihit: Not affected
Vulnerability L1tf: Not affected
Vulnerability Mds: Not affected
Vulnerability Meltdown: Not affected
Vulnerability Mmio stale data: Not affected
Vulnerability Reg file data sampling: Not affected
Vulnerability Retbleed: Not affected
Vulnerability Spec rstack overflow: Not affected
Vulnerability Spec store bypass: Mitigation; Speculative Store Bypass disabled via prctl
Vulnerability Spectre v1: Mitigation; __user pointer sanitization
Vulnerability Spectre v2: Mitigation; CSV2, BHB
Vulnerability Srbds: Not affected
Vulnerability Tsa: Not affected
Vulnerability Tsx async abort: Not affected
Vulnerability Vmscape: Not affected
```
</details>
<details><summary>Details</summary>
<p>
```
group main nullability-mismatch-22034
----- ---- --------------------------
logical_aggregate_with_join 1.02 423.5±1.20µs ? ?/sec 1.00 416.2±2.57µs ? ?/sec
logical_correlated_subquery_exists 1.01 253.3±1.06µs ? ?/sec 1.00 249.8±0.74µs ? ?/sec
logical_correlated_subquery_in 1.02 254.3±0.71µs ? ?/sec 1.00 249.9±0.50µs ? ?/sec
logical_distinct_many_columns 1.00 316.0±0.56µs ? ?/sec 1.01 318.9±0.67µs ? ?/sec
logical_join_4_with_agg_and_filter 1.03 240.8±0.64µs ? ?/sec 1.00 234.0±0.95µs ? ?/sec
logical_join_8_with_agg_sort_limit 1.03 412.5±1.85µs ? ?/sec 1.00 399.8±0.97µs ? ?/sec
logical_join_chain_16 1.02 662.8±3.96µs ? ?/sec 1.00 652.2±2.31µs ? ?/sec
logical_join_chain_4 1.03 117.1±0.39µs ? ?/sec 1.00 114.2±0.30µs ? ?/sec
logical_join_chain_8 1.02 244.0±0.68µs ? ?/sec 1.00 239.5±0.49µs ? ?/sec
logical_multiple_subqueries 1.01 455.0±0.98µs ? ?/sec 1.00 451.3±1.08µs ? ?/sec
logical_nested_cte_4_levels 1.03 245.5±0.82µs ? ?/sec 1.00 237.7±0.99µs ? ?/sec
logical_plan_struct_join_agg_sort 1.04 173.8±0.69µs ? ?/sec 1.00 166.7±0.84µs ? ?/sec
logical_plan_tpcds_all 1.01 75.2±0.15ms ? ?/sec 1.00 74.3±0.12ms ? ?/sec
logical_plan_tpch_all 1.02 5.8±0.01ms ? ?/sec 1.00 5.7±0.01ms ? ?/sec
logical_scalar_subquery 1.03 277.5±1.18µs ? ?/sec 1.00 270.6±0.97µs ? ?/sec
logical_select_all_from_1000 1.00 8.0±0.03ms ? ?/sec 1.00 8.0±0.02ms ? ?/sec
logical_select_one_from_700 1.00 275.6±1.76µs ? ?/sec 1.00 276.8±1.44µs ? ?/sec
logical_trivial_join_high_numbered_columns 1.01 258.3±0.71µs ? ?/sec 1.00 255.8±1.44µs ? ?/sec
logical_trivial_join_low_numbered_columns 1.01 245.7±0.56µs ? ?/sec 1.00 243.2±0.66µs ? ?/sec
logical_union_4_branches 1.02 363.0±1.81µs ? ?/sec 1.00 355.7±1.33µs ? ?/sec
logical_union_8_branches 1.01 688.4±2.34µs ? ?/sec 1.00 680.8±4.87µs ? ?/sec
logical_wide_aggregate_100_exprs 1.00 3.7±0.01ms ? ?/sec 1.00 3.7±0.01ms ? ?/sec
logical_wide_case_50_exprs 1.00 1658.8±4.93µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1658.5±3.69µs ? ?/sec
logical_wide_filter_200_predicates 1.00 1285.0±7.08µs ? ?/sec 1.01 1291.9±6.38µs ? ?/sec
logical_wide_filter_50_predicates 1.01 380.4±1.79µs ? ?/sec 1.00 376.6±2.73µs ? ?/sec
optimizer_correlated_exists 1.00 251.6±0.54µs ? ?/sec 1.00 252.9±0.60µs ? ?/sec
optimizer_join_4_with_agg_filter 1.01 426.2±1.34µs ? ?/sec 1.00 420.9±0.72µs ? ?/sec
optimizer_join_chain_4 1.01 178.8±0.44µs ? ?/sec 1.00 176.9±0.55µs ? ?/sec
optimizer_join_chain_8 1.00 556.7±1.14µs ? ?/sec 1.00 554.5±1.27µs ? ?/sec
optimizer_select_all_from_1000 1.00 4.6±0.01ms ? ?/sec 1.03 4.8±0.01ms ? ?/sec
optimizer_select_one_from_700 1.00 257.8±0.62µs ? ?/sec 1.01 259.1±0.70µs ? ?/sec
optimizer_tpcds_all 1.01 251.9±0.30ms ? ?/sec 1.00 249.4±0.26ms ? ?/sec
optimizer_tpch_all 1.01 14.3±0.03ms ? ?/sec 1.00 14.1±0.03ms ? ?/sec
optimizer_wide_aggregate_100 1.00 2.1±0.00ms ? ?/sec 1.00 2.1±0.01ms ? ?/sec
optimizer_wide_filter_200 1.00 3.4±0.00ms ? ?/sec 1.01 3.4±0.02ms ? ?/sec
physical_intersection 1.01 552.9±1.72µs ? ?/sec 1.00 545.2±1.94µs ? ?/sec
physical_join_consider_sort 1.01 982.0±2.29µs ? ?/sec 1.00 973.9±1.70µs ? ?/sec
physical_join_distinct 1.00 238.7±0.84µs ? ?/sec 1.00 238.2±0.74µs ? ?/sec
physical_many_self_joins 1.00 7.5±0.01ms ? ?/sec 1.01 7.6±0.01ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_all 1.00 118.6±0.22ms ? ?/sec 1.00 118.3±0.23ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q1 1.00 1289.6±5.93µs ? ?/sec 1.01 1301.4±5.42µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q10 1.02 1894.8±13.57µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1862.6±4.37µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q11 1.02 2.1±0.01ms ? ?/sec 1.00 2.0±0.00ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q12 1.02 2.2±0.00ms ? ?/sec 1.00 2.1±0.00ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q13 1.01 1930.6±4.31µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1916.1±4.67µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q14 1.01 2.1±0.01ms ? ?/sec 1.00 2.1±0.00ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q15 1.01 1980.2±4.74µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1966.2±5.17µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q16 1.00 1640.4±5.98µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1633.5±4.08µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q17 1.00 1684.6±5.37µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1677.8±5.42µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q18 1.01 1545.7±4.59µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1537.3±5.28µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q19 1.01 1893.4±4.99µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1880.5±4.63µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q2 1.02 1690.0±13.15µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1659.9±4.91µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q20 1.01 1444.5±4.67µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1432.5±4.92µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q21 1.00 1661.4±6.36µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1655.6±5.86µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q22 1.00 2.0±0.01ms ? ?/sec 1.02 2.0±0.00ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q23 1.00 2.2±0.01ms ? ?/sec 1.01 2.2±0.00ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q24 1.00 5.4±0.01ms ? ?/sec 1.01 5.4±0.01ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q25 1.01 1820.7±4.72µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1809.3±3.92µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q26 1.00 1645.8±9.06µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1648.4±5.28µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q27 1.00 1812.6±4.69µs ? ?/sec 1.01 1825.7±4.65µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q28 1.00 2.2±0.00ms ? ?/sec 1.01 2.2±0.01ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q29 1.00 2.4±0.01ms ? ?/sec 1.01 2.4±0.00ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q3 1.00 1532.3±4.32µs ? ?/sec 1.02 1555.5±7.02µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q30 1.00 14.6±0.06ms ? ?/sec 1.00 14.6±0.04ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q31 1.00 2.3±0.00ms ? ?/sec 1.00 2.3±0.00ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q32 1.00 2.3±0.00ms ? ?/sec 1.00 2.3±0.01ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q33 1.00 1879.8±5.67µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1882.8±12.88µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q34 1.00 1653.0±5.50µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1654.6±4.64µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q35 1.01 1731.4±12.97µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1718.0±3.91µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q36 1.00 2.0±0.01ms ? ?/sec 1.00 2.0±0.00ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q37 1.00 2.4±0.00ms ? ?/sec 1.00 2.4±0.00ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q38 1.00 2.4±0.01ms ? ?/sec 1.00 2.4±0.00ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q39 1.01 2.4±0.01ms ? ?/sec 1.00 2.4±0.01ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q4 1.02 1387.2±5.36µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1363.9±5.11µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q40 1.01 3.2±0.00ms ? ?/sec 1.00 3.1±0.01ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q41 1.01 2.7±0.01ms ? ?/sec 1.00 2.7±0.00ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q42 1.01 2.9±0.01ms ? ?/sec 1.00 2.9±0.00ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q43 1.01 3.0±0.01ms ? ?/sec 1.00 3.0±0.01ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q44 1.00 1442.6±4.26µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1436.1±4.52µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q45 1.02 1466.5±4.79µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1440.4±4.83µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q46 1.02 1765.5±5.03µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1735.3±4.54µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q47 1.01 2.5±0.01ms ? ?/sec 1.00 2.4±0.02ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q48 1.01 2.6±0.01ms ? ?/sec 1.00 2.6±0.02ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q49 1.02 2.7±0.01ms ? ?/sec 1.00 2.7±0.01ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q5 1.00 1490.4±6.28µs ? ?/sec 1.01 1502.3±4.88µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q50 1.01 2.5±0.01ms ? ?/sec 1.00 2.5±0.01ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q51 1.01 1845.1±4.80µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1828.7±4.23µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q6 1.00 1492.2±5.28µs ? ?/sec 1.01 1504.4±4.53µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q7 1.00 1325.5±4.34µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1319.0±5.02µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q8 1.01 1798.0±5.86µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1786.9±4.71µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q9 1.00 1770.5±4.36µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1762.1±4.68µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_struct_join_agg_sort 1.00 1212.1±3.06µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1214.9±2.00µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_tpcds_all 1.00 644.4±0.68ms ? ?/sec 1.00 643.2±0.57ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_tpch_all 1.00 42.3±0.05ms ? ?/sec 1.00 42.3±0.05ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_tpch_q1 1.01 1411.1±3.06µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1392.2±2.41µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_tpch_q10 1.00 2.7±0.00ms ? ?/sec 1.00 2.7±0.00ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_tpch_q11 1.01 2.1±0.00ms ? ?/sec 1.00 2.0±0.00ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_tpch_q12 1.02 1127.8±3.91µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1107.4±2.51µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_tpch_q13 1.02 882.3±1.70µs ? ?/sec 1.00 867.2±2.14µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_tpch_q14 1.01 1300.2±3.85µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1283.9±3.17µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_tpch_q16 1.01 1448.9±2.18µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1430.5±2.60µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_tpch_q17 1.02 1606.8±7.14µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1580.1±3.62µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_tpch_q18 1.02 1716.6±2.08µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1687.0±3.04µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_tpch_q19 1.01 1586.5±3.95µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1573.6±2.59µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_tpch_q2 1.01 3.9±0.00ms ? ?/sec 1.00 3.9±0.00ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_tpch_q20 1.01 2.1±0.00ms ? ?/sec 1.00 2.1±0.00ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_tpch_q21 1.01 2.8±0.01ms ? ?/sec 1.00 2.8±0.00ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_tpch_q22 1.01 1490.8±12.79µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1481.7±3.99µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_tpch_q3 1.03 1822.2±6.83µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1773.6±12.43µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_tpch_q4 1.02 1092.8±3.31µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1075.7±8.79µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_tpch_q5 1.01 2.4±0.01ms ? ?/sec 1.00 2.4±0.00ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_tpch_q6 1.04 597.0±2.05µs ? ?/sec 1.00 573.9±1.62µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_tpch_q7 1.01 2.9±0.00ms ? ?/sec 1.00 2.9±0.00ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_tpch_q8 1.01 3.8±0.00ms ? ?/sec 1.00 3.8±0.00ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_tpch_q9 1.01 2.7±0.00ms ? ?/sec 1.00 2.7±0.00ms ? ?/sec
physical_select_aggregates_from_200 1.00 13.3±0.03ms ? ?/sec 1.00 13.3±0.02ms ? ?/sec
physical_select_all_from_1000 1.00 16.8±0.03ms ? ?/sec 1.01 17.0±0.05ms ? ?/sec
physical_select_one_from_700 1.01 729.8±4.68µs ? ?/sec 1.00 720.9±5.50µs ? ?/sec
physical_sorted_union_order_by_10_int64 1.00 4.2±0.01ms ? ?/sec 1.00 4.2±0.00ms ? ?/sec
physical_sorted_union_order_by_10_uint64 1.00 8.2±0.01ms ? ?/sec 1.00 8.2±0.01ms ? ?/sec
physical_sorted_union_order_by_50_int64 1.00 103.6±0.26ms ? ?/sec 1.00 103.7±0.22ms ? ?/sec
physical_sorted_union_order_by_50_uint64 1.00 354.3±0.65ms ? ?/sec 1.00 354.6±0.57ms ? ?/sec
physical_theta_join_consider_sort 1.01 1015.1±2.37µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1005.8±5.15µs ? ?/sec
physical_unnest_to_join 1.02 628.4±1.91µs ? ?/sec 1.00 616.9±1.20µs ? ?/sec
physical_window_function_partition_by_12_on_values 1.01 696.1±1.04µs ? ?/sec 1.00 687.0±1.84µs ? ?/sec
physical_window_function_partition_by_30_on_values 1.01 1389.2±2.61µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1378.6±2.05µs ? ?/sec
physical_window_function_partition_by_4_on_values 1.03 422.9±0.94µs ? ?/sec 1.00 409.6±1.63µs ? ?/sec
physical_window_function_partition_by_7_on_values 1.02 518.8±0.92µs ? ?/sec 1.00 510.5±1.75µs ? ?/sec
physical_window_function_partition_by_8_on_values 1.01 554.9±1.43µs ? ?/sec 1.00 550.0±1.42µs ? ?/sec
with_param_values_many_columns 1.00 427.2±1.82µs ? ?/sec 1.01 431.6±2.67µs ? ?/sec
```
</p>
</details>
<details><summary>Resource Usage</summary>
**base (merge-base)**
| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Wall time | 1550.3s |
| Peak memory | 19.9 GiB |
| Avg memory | 19.8 GiB |
| CPU user | 1869.2s |
| CPU sys | 2.0s |
| Peak spill | 0 B |
**branch**
| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Wall time | 1550.3s |
| Peak memory | 19.9 GiB |
| Avg memory | 19.8 GiB |
| CPU user | 1867.2s |
| CPU sys | 1.4s |
| Peak spill | 0 B |
</details>
---
[File an issue](https://github.com/adriangb/datafusion-benchmarking/issues) against this benchmark runner
--
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-unsubscribe@datafusion.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscribe@datafusion.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: github-help@datafusion.apache.org
Re: [PR] Preserve recursive CTE nullability across logical and physical planning [datafusion]
Posted by "kosiew (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
kosiew commented on PR #22037:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/22037#issuecomment-4517191672
run benchmark sql_planner
--
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-unsubscribe@datafusion.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscribe@datafusion.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: github-help@datafusion.apache.org
Re: [PR] Preserve recursive CTE nullability across logical and physical planning [datafusion]
Posted by "adriangbot (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
adriangbot commented on PR #22037:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/22037#issuecomment-4517225361
🤖 Criterion benchmark running (GKE) | [trigger](https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/22037#issuecomment-4517191672)
**Instance:** `c4a-highmem-16` (12 vCPU / 65 GiB) | `Linux bench-c4517191672-283-8wnbl 6.12.68+ #1 SMP Wed Apr 1 02:23:28 UTC 2026 aarch64 GNU/Linux`
<details><summary>CPU Details (lscpu)</summary>
```
Architecture: aarch64
CPU op-mode(s): 64-bit
Byte Order: Little Endian
CPU(s): 16
On-line CPU(s) list: 0-15
Vendor ID: ARM
Model name: Neoverse-V2
Model: 1
Thread(s) per core: 1
Core(s) per cluster: 16
Socket(s): -
Cluster(s): 1
Stepping: r0p1
BogoMIPS: 2000.00
Flags: fp asimd evtstrm aes pmull sha1 sha2 crc32 atomics fphp asimdhp cpuid asimdrdm jscvt fcma lrcpc dcpop sha3 sm3 sm4 asimddp sha512 sve asimdfhm dit uscat ilrcpc flagm sb paca pacg dcpodp sve2 sveaes svepmull svebitperm svesha3 svesm4 flagm2 frint svei8mm svebf16 i8mm bf16 dgh rng bti
L1d cache: 1 MiB (16 instances)
L1i cache: 1 MiB (16 instances)
L2 cache: 32 MiB (16 instances)
L3 cache: 80 MiB (1 instance)
NUMA node(s): 1
NUMA node0 CPU(s): 0-15
Vulnerability Gather data sampling: Not affected
Vulnerability Indirect target selection: Not affected
Vulnerability Itlb multihit: Not affected
Vulnerability L1tf: Not affected
Vulnerability Mds: Not affected
Vulnerability Meltdown: Not affected
Vulnerability Mmio stale data: Not affected
Vulnerability Reg file data sampling: Not affected
Vulnerability Retbleed: Not affected
Vulnerability Spec rstack overflow: Not affected
Vulnerability Spec store bypass: Mitigation; Speculative Store Bypass disabled via prctl
Vulnerability Spectre v1: Mitigation; __user pointer sanitization
Vulnerability Spectre v2: Mitigation; CSV2, BHB
Vulnerability Srbds: Not affected
Vulnerability Tsa: Not affected
Vulnerability Tsx async abort: Not affected
Vulnerability Vmscape: Not affected
```
</details>
Comparing nullability-mismatch-22034 (f6d790ba8451a2aa77ab2c69e0f94dff5e45e2e9) to 9986525 (merge-base) [diff](https://github.com/apache/datafusion/compare/9986525d5ce777d4342eb3230083fab313d4ace1..f6d790ba8451a2aa77ab2c69e0f94dff5e45e2e9)
BENCH_NAME=sql_planner
BENCH_COMMAND=cargo bench --features=parquet --bench sql_planner
BENCH_FILTER=
Results will be posted here when complete
---
[File an issue](https://github.com/adriangb/datafusion-benchmarking/issues) against this benchmark runner
--
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-unsubscribe@datafusion.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscribe@datafusion.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: github-help@datafusion.apache.org
Re: [PR] Preserve recursive CTE nullability across logical and physical planning [datafusion]
Posted by "adriangbot (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
adriangbot commented on PR #22037:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/22037#issuecomment-4448563196
🤖 Criterion benchmark completed (GKE) | [trigger](https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/22037#issuecomment-4448157662)
**Instance:** `c4a-highmem-16` (12 vCPU / 65 GiB)
<details><summary>CPU Details (lscpu)</summary>
```
Architecture: aarch64
CPU op-mode(s): 64-bit
Byte Order: Little Endian
CPU(s): 16
On-line CPU(s) list: 0-15
Vendor ID: ARM
Model name: Neoverse-V2
Model: 1
Thread(s) per core: 1
Core(s) per cluster: 16
Socket(s): -
Cluster(s): 1
Stepping: r0p1
BogoMIPS: 2000.00
Flags: fp asimd evtstrm aes pmull sha1 sha2 crc32 atomics fphp asimdhp cpuid asimdrdm jscvt fcma lrcpc dcpop sha3 sm3 sm4 asimddp sha512 sve asimdfhm dit uscat ilrcpc flagm sb paca pacg dcpodp sve2 sveaes svepmull svebitperm svesha3 svesm4 flagm2 frint svei8mm svebf16 i8mm bf16 dgh rng bti
L1d cache: 1 MiB (16 instances)
L1i cache: 1 MiB (16 instances)
L2 cache: 32 MiB (16 instances)
L3 cache: 80 MiB (1 instance)
NUMA node(s): 1
NUMA node0 CPU(s): 0-15
Vulnerability Gather data sampling: Not affected
Vulnerability Indirect target selection: Not affected
Vulnerability Itlb multihit: Not affected
Vulnerability L1tf: Not affected
Vulnerability Mds: Not affected
Vulnerability Meltdown: Not affected
Vulnerability Mmio stale data: Not affected
Vulnerability Reg file data sampling: Not affected
Vulnerability Retbleed: Not affected
Vulnerability Spec rstack overflow: Not affected
Vulnerability Spec store bypass: Mitigation; Speculative Store Bypass disabled via prctl
Vulnerability Spectre v1: Mitigation; __user pointer sanitization
Vulnerability Spectre v2: Mitigation; CSV2, BHB
Vulnerability Srbds: Not affected
Vulnerability Tsa: Not affected
Vulnerability Tsx async abort: Not affected
Vulnerability Vmscape: Not affected
```
</details>
<details><summary>Details</summary>
<p>
```
group main nullability-mismatch-22034
----- ---- --------------------------
logical_aggregate_with_join 1.00 416.0±1.43µs ? ?/sec 1.01 418.8±2.83µs ? ?/sec
logical_plan_struct_join_agg_sort 1.00 160.8±1.66µs ? ?/sec 1.04 167.2±0.78µs ? ?/sec
logical_select_all_from_1000 1.03 8.3±0.03ms ? ?/sec 1.00 8.0±0.02ms ? ?/sec
logical_select_one_from_700 1.01 275.4±1.57µs ? ?/sec 1.00 273.8±1.53µs ? ?/sec
logical_trivial_join_high_numbered_columns 1.01 257.8±0.55µs ? ?/sec 1.00 254.1±2.79µs ? ?/sec
logical_trivial_join_low_numbered_columns 1.02 244.8±0.58µs ? ?/sec 1.00 240.3±0.55µs ? ?/sec
physical_intersection 1.00 587.5±2.18µs ? ?/sec 1.01 592.9±1.63µs ? ?/sec
physical_join_consider_sort 1.00 1017.7±3.66µs ? ?/sec 1.01 1030.2±3.45µs ? ?/sec
physical_join_distinct 1.02 239.4±4.44µs ? ?/sec 1.00 235.5±0.52µs ? ?/sec
physical_many_self_joins 1.01 7.7±0.01ms ? ?/sec 1.00 7.7±0.02ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_all 1.00 128.6±0.96ms ? ?/sec 1.00 128.2±2.24ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q1 1.00 1343.8±5.00µs ? ?/sec 1.03 1378.6±5.71µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q10 1.01 2.1±0.01ms ? ?/sec 1.00 2.0±0.00ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q11 1.01 2.2±0.04ms ? ?/sec 1.00 2.2±0.01ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q12 1.00 2.3±0.01ms ? ?/sec 1.01 2.3±0.01ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q13 1.00 2.0±0.04ms ? ?/sec 1.00 2.1±0.01ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q14 1.00 2.2±0.00ms ? ?/sec 1.01 2.2±0.01ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q15 1.00 2.1±0.00ms ? ?/sec 1.01 2.1±0.01ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q16 1.00 1729.1±17.91µs ? ?/sec 1.01 1749.9±5.06µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q17 1.00 1779.9±6.55µs ? ?/sec 1.01 1796.7±12.88µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q18 1.00 1604.9±9.66µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1612.3±5.24µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q19 1.00 1984.2±6.15µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1983.2±5.99µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q2 1.00 1755.5±5.11µs ? ?/sec 1.03 1800.8±34.04µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q20 1.01 1521.8±17.10µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1505.9±5.57µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q21 1.01 1767.9±19.29µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1747.0±4.73µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q22 1.00 2.2±0.03ms ? ?/sec 1.00 2.2±0.01ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q23 1.02 2.4±0.01ms ? ?/sec 1.00 2.4±0.01ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q24 1.01 5.8±0.02ms ? ?/sec 1.00 5.7±0.01ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q25 1.03 1953.3±13.34µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1899.7±5.70µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q26 1.02 1747.4±9.38µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1720.8±6.65µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q27 1.02 1966.2±5.84µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1922.6±8.51µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q28 1.00 2.4±0.01ms ? ?/sec 1.01 2.4±0.01ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q29 1.00 2.6±0.01ms ? ?/sec 1.02 2.6±0.01ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q3 1.00 1614.5±7.03µs ? ?/sec 1.02 1646.0±5.18µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q30 1.00 16.2±0.09ms ? ?/sec 1.00 16.3±0.03ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q31 1.00 2.4±0.00ms ? ?/sec 1.02 2.5±0.01ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q32 1.00 2.4±0.02ms ? ?/sec 1.02 2.5±0.00ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q33 1.00 1982.0±6.42µs ? ?/sec 1.02 2.0±0.01ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q34 1.00 1728.4±4.79µs ? ?/sec 1.01 1753.5±4.45µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q35 1.00 1796.6±25.27µs ? ?/sec 1.02 1834.6±14.12µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q36 1.00 2.1±0.01ms ? ?/sec 1.01 2.1±0.01ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q37 1.00 2.6±0.03ms ? ?/sec 1.01 2.6±0.01ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q38 1.00 2.6±0.00ms ? ?/sec 1.01 2.6±0.01ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q39 1.00 2.7±0.04ms ? ?/sec 1.00 2.7±0.00ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q4 1.00 1417.0±5.96µs ? ?/sec 1.02 1442.7±6.32µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q40 1.00 3.5±0.06ms ? ?/sec 1.00 3.5±0.01ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q41 1.00 3.0±0.01ms ? ?/sec 1.00 2.9±0.01ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q42 1.00 3.1±0.01ms ? ?/sec 1.00 3.2±0.01ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q43 1.01 3.3±0.08ms ? ?/sec 1.00 3.2±0.01ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q44 1.00 1527.5±6.71µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1529.8±22.03µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q45 1.00 1531.1±4.74µs ? ?/sec 1.01 1541.5±4.15µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q46 1.01 1873.0±14.69µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1857.3±4.74µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q47 1.00 2.6±0.00ms ? ?/sec 1.00 2.6±0.04ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q48 1.01 2.9±0.03ms ? ?/sec 1.00 2.9±0.01ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q49 1.01 2.9±0.02ms ? ?/sec 1.00 2.9±0.01ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q5 1.00 1561.8±5.87µs ? ?/sec 1.01 1582.5±4.51µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q50 1.01 2.9±0.08ms ? ?/sec 1.00 2.9±0.02ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q51 1.02 2.0±0.01ms ? ?/sec 1.00 1972.8±12.96µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q6 1.03 1604.0±6.31µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1550.3±5.09µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q7 1.03 1636.5±6.31µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1585.1±5.68µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q8 1.04 1950.4±5.04µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1880.3±6.35µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_clickbench_q9 1.00 1920.7±5.31µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1915.5±8.98µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_struct_join_agg_sort 1.00 1383.6±2.62µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1390.1±2.44µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_tpcds_all 1.00 722.1±3.05ms ? ?/sec 1.02 734.0±3.46ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_tpch_all 1.00 47.5±0.26ms ? ?/sec 1.02 48.6±0.05ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_tpch_q1 1.00 1564.1±3.08µs ? ?/sec 1.02 1592.9±2.44µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_tpch_q10 1.00 3.0±0.01ms ? ?/sec 1.01 3.0±0.02ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_tpch_q11 1.00 2.2±0.01ms ? ?/sec 1.01 2.2±0.01ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_tpch_q12 1.00 1312.3±4.03µs ? ?/sec 1.01 1319.3±4.11µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_tpch_q13 1.00 997.1±5.86µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1001.2±4.42µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_tpch_q14 1.00 1424.6±3.56µs ? ?/sec 1.02 1455.1±3.28µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_tpch_q16 1.00 1662.6±3.84µs ? ?/sec 1.00 1670.4±7.27µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_tpch_q17 1.00 1781.8±5.22µs ? ?/sec 1.02 1810.8±10.18µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_tpch_q18 1.00 1887.9±5.00µs ? ?/sec 1.01 1908.0±8.93µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_tpch_q19 1.00 2.5±0.01ms ? ?/sec 1.03 2.5±0.04ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_tpch_q2 1.00 4.3±0.00ms ? ?/sec 1.01 4.4±0.00ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_tpch_q20 1.00 2.4±0.00ms ? ?/sec 1.01 2.4±0.02ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_tpch_q21 1.00 3.1±0.01ms ? ?/sec 1.00 3.2±0.00ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_tpch_q22 1.00 1532.3±2.73µs ? ?/sec 1.01 1545.3±2.12µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_tpch_q3 1.00 2.0±0.01ms ? ?/sec 1.02 2.0±0.00ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_tpch_q4 1.00 1171.6±3.30µs ? ?/sec 1.01 1184.0±2.00µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_tpch_q5 1.00 2.6±0.02ms ? ?/sec 1.02 2.7±0.04ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_tpch_q6 1.00 658.8±2.10µs ? ?/sec 1.03 680.3±1.98µs ? ?/sec
physical_plan_tpch_q7 1.00 3.2±0.03ms ? ?/sec 1.01 3.2±0.02ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_tpch_q8 1.00 4.2±0.01ms ? ?/sec 1.01 4.2±0.05ms ? ?/sec
physical_plan_tpch_q9 1.00 2.9±0.00ms ? ?/sec 1.01 2.9±0.00ms ? ?/sec
physical_select_aggregates_from_200 1.00 14.7±0.02ms ? ?/sec 1.00 14.7±0.04ms ? ?/sec
physical_select_all_from_1000 1.02 18.0±0.05ms ? ?/sec 1.00 17.5±0.04ms ? ?/sec
physical_select_one_from_700 1.01 722.8±1.74µs ? ?/sec 1.00 718.4±2.55µs ? ?/sec
physical_sorted_union_order_by_10_int64 1.00 4.8±0.01ms ? ?/sec 1.00 4.8±0.01ms ? ?/sec
physical_sorted_union_order_by_10_uint64 1.00 11.6±0.01ms ? ?/sec 1.00 11.6±0.03ms ? ?/sec
physical_sorted_union_order_by_50_int64 1.00 113.1±0.27ms ? ?/sec 1.00 113.4±0.42ms ? ?/sec
physical_sorted_union_order_by_50_uint64 1.00 603.3±2.67ms ? ?/sec 1.01 607.3±2.79ms ? ?/sec
physical_theta_join_consider_sort 1.00 1052.7±3.43µs ? ?/sec 1.01 1064.5±2.64µs ? ?/sec
physical_unnest_to_join 1.00 616.0±1.68µs ? ?/sec 1.02 627.3±1.70µs ? ?/sec
physical_window_function_partition_by_12_on_values 1.00 742.5±2.35µs ? ?/sec 1.02 755.0±2.67µs ? ?/sec
physical_window_function_partition_by_30_on_values 1.00 1490.4±3.60µs ? ?/sec 1.01 1499.8±2.64µs ? ?/sec
physical_window_function_partition_by_4_on_values 1.00 439.8±1.22µs ? ?/sec 1.05 460.4±1.28µs ? ?/sec
physical_window_function_partition_by_7_on_values 1.00 551.4±2.09µs ? ?/sec 1.03 566.7±1.19µs ? ?/sec
physical_window_function_partition_by_8_on_values 1.00 593.8±1.91µs ? ?/sec 1.02 606.9±1.39µs ? ?/sec
with_param_values_many_columns 1.01 461.3±2.71µs ? ?/sec 1.00 456.2±2.10µs ? ?/sec
```
</p>
</details>
<details><summary>Resource Usage</summary>
**base (merge-base)**
| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Wall time | 1240.3s |
| Peak memory | 19.7 GiB |
| Avg memory | 19.7 GiB |
| CPU user | 1479.6s |
| CPU sys | 1.6s |
| Peak spill | 0 B |
**branch**
| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Wall time | 1245.3s |
| Peak memory | 19.8 GiB |
| Avg memory | 19.7 GiB |
| CPU user | 1485.2s |
| CPU sys | 1.1s |
| Peak spill | 0 B |
</details>
---
[File an issue](https://github.com/adriangb/datafusion-benchmarking/issues) against this benchmark runner
--
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-unsubscribe@datafusion.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscribe@datafusion.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: github-help@datafusion.apache.org
Re: [PR] Preserve recursive CTE nullability across logical and physical planning [datafusion]
Posted by "kosiew (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
kosiew commented on PR #22037:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/22037#issuecomment-4542066293
@neilconway
Yes, I updated the PR to follow `UNION`'s nullability analysis pattern, while keeping `RecursiveQuery`'s existing node shape.
The new approach computes recursive output nullability once (`static_nullable || recursive_nullable`) while preserving the static term's names/types/metadata, then projects both terms to that reconciled schema. This is similar to `UNION` because output nullability is derived once from both sides and then treated as the contract through logical/physical planning.
It is not identical to `UNION` structurally: `UNION` stores an explicit schema on the logical node, while `RecursiveQuery` still exposes schema via the coerced static term (instead of adding a new `DFSchema` field to `RecursiveQuery`, which is a `pub struct` with `pub` fields and therefore part of the public API surface).
But behavior-wise the key property is now the same: we stop re-deriving recursive CTE nullability from child projection expressions during rebuilds.
--
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-unsubscribe@datafusion.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscribe@datafusion.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: github-help@datafusion.apache.org
Re: [PR] Preserve recursive CTE static schema with plan-time schema alignment [datafusion]
Posted by "kosiew (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
kosiew commented on PR #22037:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/22037#issuecomment-4416975375
@neilconway
Thanks for this test case:
```
SET datafusion.execution.enable_recursive_ctes = true;
WITH RECURSIVE t AS (
SELECT 0 AS n
UNION ALL
SELECT CAST(NULL AS INT) AS n FROM t WHERE n IS NOT NULL
)
SELECT * FROM t;
```
and this suggestion
```
shouldn't we be computing the CTE's logical schema by widening the anchor and the recursive schemas? This is conceptually similar to what we do for UNION. That is, if the anchor expression is non-nullable and the recursive expression is nullable, the output schema should be nullable.
```
--
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-unsubscribe@datafusion.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscribe@datafusion.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: github-help@datafusion.apache.org
Re: [PR] Preserve recursive CTE nullability across logical and physical planning [datafusion]
Posted by "kosiew (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
kosiew commented on PR #22037:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/22037#issuecomment-4519785977
@neilconway
I added your new tests and a few more.
--
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-unsubscribe@datafusion.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscribe@datafusion.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: github-help@datafusion.apache.org
Re: [PR] Preserve recursive CTE nullability across logical and physical planning [datafusion]
Posted by "kosiew (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
kosiew commented on PR #22037:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/22037#issuecomment-4517126077
run benchmark sql_runner
--
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-unsubscribe@datafusion.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscribe@datafusion.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: github-help@datafusion.apache.org
Re: [PR] Preserve recursive CTE nullability across logical and physical planning [datafusion]
Posted by "adriangbot (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
adriangbot commented on PR #22037:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/22037#issuecomment-4448277113
Hi @kosiew, you asked to view the benchmark queue (https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/22037#issuecomment-4448276807).
| Comment | Repo | PR | User | Benchmarks | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [#4448041895](https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/20381#issuecomment-4448041895) | apache/datafusion | #20381 | adriangb | ["clickbench_partitioned"] | running |
| [#4448041895](https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/20381#issuecomment-4448041895) | apache/datafusion | #20381 | adriangb | ["tpcds"] | running |
| [#4448145440](https://github.com/apache/arrow-rs/pull/9972#issuecomment-4448145440) | apache/arrow-rs | #9972 | adriangb | ["arrow_writer"] | running |
| [#4448157662](https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/22037#issuecomment-4448157662) | apache/datafusion | #22037 | kosiew | ["sql_planner"] | running |
---
[File an issue](https://github.com/adriangb/datafusion-benchmarking/issues) against this benchmark runner
--
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-unsubscribe@datafusion.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscribe@datafusion.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: github-help@datafusion.apache.org
Re: [PR] Preserve recursive CTE nullability across logical and physical planning [datafusion]
Posted by "kosiew (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
kosiew commented on PR #22037:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/22037#issuecomment-4448157662
run benchmark sql_planner
--
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-unsubscribe@datafusion.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscribe@datafusion.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: github-help@datafusion.apache.org
Re: [PR] Preserve recursive CTE nullability across logical and physical planning [datafusion]
Posted by "adriangbot (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
adriangbot commented on PR #22037:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/22037#issuecomment-4517148681
Benchmark for [this request](https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/22037#issuecomment-4517126077) failed.
Last 20 lines of output:
<details><summary>Click to expand</summary>
```
Downloaded aws-smithy-async v1.2.14
Downloaded aws-credential-types v1.2.14
Downloaded async-trait v0.1.89
Downloaded async-stream-impl v0.3.6
Downloaded async-ffi v0.5.0
Downloaded anstyle-query v1.1.5
Downloaded async-stream v0.3.6
Downloaded clap_lex v1.1.0
Downloaded ciborium-ll v0.2.2
Downloaded aws-smithy-runtime-api-macros v1.0.0
Downloaded atomic-waker v1.1.2
Downloaded aws-smithy-query v0.60.15
Downloaded atoi v2.0.0
Downloaded block-buffer v0.12.0
Downloaded aws-smithy-observability v0.2.6
Downloaded async-recursion v1.1.1
Blocking waiting for file lock on package cache
error: no bench target named `sql_runner` in default-run packages
help: a target with a similar name exists: `sql_planner`
```
</details>
---
[File an issue](https://github.com/adriangb/datafusion-benchmarking/issues) against this benchmark runner
--
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-unsubscribe@datafusion.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscribe@datafusion.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: github-help@datafusion.apache.org
Re: [PR] Preserve recursive CTE nullability across logical and physical planning [datafusion]
Posted by "neilconway (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
neilconway commented on PR #22037:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/22037#issuecomment-4547755017
> It is not identical to UNION structurally: UNION stores an explicit schema on the logical node, while RecursiveQuery still exposes schema via the coerced static term (instead of adding a new DFSchema field to RecursiveQuery, which is a pub struct with pub fields and therefore part of the public API surface).
Logical plan nodes whose output schema differs from their input schema almost always store an explicit schema (Values, Window, Aggregate, DistinctOn, Unnest, EmptyRelation, Projection, etc). I think storing an explicit schema in RecursiveQuery would make this PR simpler and make the CTE case more consistent with other schema-changing plan nodes.
Re: changing a pub struct, that happens routinely, so I don't think that's a strong reason to avoid going down this path by itself.
I might take a look at prototyping this approach to see if it is indeed simpler 😊
--
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-unsubscribe@datafusion.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscribe@datafusion.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: github-help@datafusion.apache.org
Re: [PR] Preserve recursive CTE static schema with plan-time schema alignment [datafusion]
Posted by "neilconway (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
neilconway commented on PR #22037:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/22037#issuecomment-4412797480
Please let me know if I'm understanding this correctly:
* The PR aims to address a situation where there is a schema mismatch between the anchor and recursive cases in a CTE
* In particular, we might infer different nullability properties between the anchor vs the recursive query -- e.g., if we have `0` in the anchor and `min(...)` in the recursive case, `0` is non-nullable and `min(...)` is nullable (as an aside, the latter is conservative: `min(x)` without `FILTER` in a grouped query is non-nullable if `x` is non-nullable, but I suppose this is a separate planner shortcoming...)
* The proposed behavior is to apply the anchor schema to the recursive CTE branch schemas. So we would effectively be requiring that a nullable `min` expression never returns a NULL, in the example above
* If the recursive query *does* return a NULL, we produce a runtime error
If that is accurate, then the proposed behavior would result in this query producing an error:
```sql
SET datafusion.execution.enable_recursive_ctes = true;
WITH RECURSIVE t AS (
SELECT 0 AS n
UNION ALL
SELECT CAST(NULL AS INT) AS n FROM t WHERE n IS NOT NULL
)
SELECT * FROM t;
```
(`Column 'n' is declared as non-nullable but contains null values`) -- but this query seems pretty reasonable to me and is allowed by other SQL implementations (e.g., Postgres, DuckDB, MariaDB, SQLite).
Instead, shouldn't we be computing the CTE's logical schema by widening the anchor and the recursive schemas? This is conceptually similar to what we do for `UNION`. That is, if the anchor expression is non-nullable and the recursive expression is nullable, the output schema should be nullable.
--
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-unsubscribe@datafusion.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscribe@datafusion.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: github-help@datafusion.apache.org
Re: [PR] Preserve recursive CTE nullability across logical and physical planning [datafusion]
Posted by "adriangbot (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
adriangbot commented on PR #22037:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/22037#issuecomment-4448177281
🤖 Criterion benchmark running (GKE) | [trigger](https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/22037#issuecomment-4448157662)
**Instance:** `c4a-highmem-16` (12 vCPU / 65 GiB) | `Linux bench-c4448157662-72-fnj6f 6.12.68+ #1 SMP Wed Apr 1 02:23:28 UTC 2026 aarch64 GNU/Linux`
<details><summary>CPU Details (lscpu)</summary>
```
Architecture: aarch64
CPU op-mode(s): 64-bit
Byte Order: Little Endian
CPU(s): 16
On-line CPU(s) list: 0-15
Vendor ID: ARM
Model name: Neoverse-V2
Model: 1
Thread(s) per core: 1
Core(s) per cluster: 16
Socket(s): -
Cluster(s): 1
Stepping: r0p1
BogoMIPS: 2000.00
Flags: fp asimd evtstrm aes pmull sha1 sha2 crc32 atomics fphp asimdhp cpuid asimdrdm jscvt fcma lrcpc dcpop sha3 sm3 sm4 asimddp sha512 sve asimdfhm dit uscat ilrcpc flagm sb paca pacg dcpodp sve2 sveaes svepmull svebitperm svesha3 svesm4 flagm2 frint svei8mm svebf16 i8mm bf16 dgh rng bti
L1d cache: 1 MiB (16 instances)
L1i cache: 1 MiB (16 instances)
L2 cache: 32 MiB (16 instances)
L3 cache: 80 MiB (1 instance)
NUMA node(s): 1
NUMA node0 CPU(s): 0-15
Vulnerability Gather data sampling: Not affected
Vulnerability Indirect target selection: Not affected
Vulnerability Itlb multihit: Not affected
Vulnerability L1tf: Not affected
Vulnerability Mds: Not affected
Vulnerability Meltdown: Not affected
Vulnerability Mmio stale data: Not affected
Vulnerability Reg file data sampling: Not affected
Vulnerability Retbleed: Not affected
Vulnerability Spec rstack overflow: Not affected
Vulnerability Spec store bypass: Mitigation; Speculative Store Bypass disabled via prctl
Vulnerability Spectre v1: Mitigation; __user pointer sanitization
Vulnerability Spectre v2: Mitigation; CSV2, BHB
Vulnerability Srbds: Not affected
Vulnerability Tsa: Not affected
Vulnerability Tsx async abort: Not affected
Vulnerability Vmscape: Not affected
```
</details>
Comparing nullability-mismatch-22034 (aa7fb40e8694f922ad35ac0af4b33fae95dbf83a) to 937dfda (merge-base) [diff](https://github.com/apache/datafusion/compare/937dfdad748589aa7372848bb2a57ef04109b931..aa7fb40e8694f922ad35ac0af4b33fae95dbf83a)
BENCH_NAME=sql_planner
BENCH_COMMAND=cargo bench --features=parquet --bench sql_planner
BENCH_FILTER=
Results will be posted here when complete
---
[File an issue](https://github.com/adriangb/datafusion-benchmarking/issues) against this benchmark runner
--
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-unsubscribe@datafusion.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscribe@datafusion.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: github-help@datafusion.apache.org
Re: [PR] Preserve recursive CTE nullability across logical and physical planning [datafusion]
Posted by "kosiew (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
kosiew commented on PR #22037:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/22037#issuecomment-4572438736
Closing in favour of #22552
--
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-unsubscribe@datafusion.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscribe@datafusion.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: github-help@datafusion.apache.org
Re: [PR] Widen recursive CTE logical schema nullability [datafusion]
Posted by "kosiew (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
kosiew commented on PR #22037:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/22037#issuecomment-4441668912
@neilconway
I added
```
WITH RECURSIVE t(a, b) AS (
SELECT 0 AS a, 0 AS b
UNION ALL
SELECT b AS a, CAST(NULL AS INT) AS b FROM t WHERE a IS NOT NULL
)
SELECT * FROM t;
```
and also implemented `mark CTE columns as nullable`
--
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-unsubscribe@datafusion.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscribe@datafusion.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: github-help@datafusion.apache.org
Re: [PR] Preserve recursive CTE nullability across logical and physical planning [datafusion]
Posted by "neilconway (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
neilconway commented on PR #22037:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/22037#issuecomment-4550553392
Alternative approach storing an explicit output schema in `RecursiveQuery`: #22552
--
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-unsubscribe@datafusion.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscribe@datafusion.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: github-help@datafusion.apache.org
Re: [PR] Preserve recursive CTE nullability across logical and physical planning [datafusion]
Posted by "adriangbot (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
adriangbot commented on PR #22037:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/22037#issuecomment-4517147940
🤖 Criterion benchmark running (GKE) | [trigger](https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/22037#issuecomment-4517126077)
**Instance:** `c4a-highmem-16` (12 vCPU / 65 GiB) | `Linux bench-c4517126077-282-nxcrn 6.12.68+ #1 SMP Wed Apr 1 02:23:28 UTC 2026 aarch64 GNU/Linux`
<details><summary>CPU Details (lscpu)</summary>
```
Architecture: aarch64
CPU op-mode(s): 64-bit
Byte Order: Little Endian
CPU(s): 16
On-line CPU(s) list: 0-15
Vendor ID: ARM
Model name: Neoverse-V2
Model: 1
Thread(s) per core: 1
Core(s) per cluster: 16
Socket(s): -
Cluster(s): 1
Stepping: r0p1
BogoMIPS: 2000.00
Flags: fp asimd evtstrm aes pmull sha1 sha2 crc32 atomics fphp asimdhp cpuid asimdrdm jscvt fcma lrcpc dcpop sha3 sm3 sm4 asimddp sha512 sve asimdfhm dit uscat ilrcpc flagm sb paca pacg dcpodp sve2 sveaes svepmull svebitperm svesha3 svesm4 flagm2 frint svei8mm svebf16 i8mm bf16 dgh rng bti
L1d cache: 1 MiB (16 instances)
L1i cache: 1 MiB (16 instances)
L2 cache: 32 MiB (16 instances)
L3 cache: 80 MiB (1 instance)
NUMA node(s): 1
NUMA node0 CPU(s): 0-15
Vulnerability Gather data sampling: Not affected
Vulnerability Indirect target selection: Not affected
Vulnerability Itlb multihit: Not affected
Vulnerability L1tf: Not affected
Vulnerability Mds: Not affected
Vulnerability Meltdown: Not affected
Vulnerability Mmio stale data: Not affected
Vulnerability Reg file data sampling: Not affected
Vulnerability Retbleed: Not affected
Vulnerability Spec rstack overflow: Not affected
Vulnerability Spec store bypass: Mitigation; Speculative Store Bypass disabled via prctl
Vulnerability Spectre v1: Mitigation; __user pointer sanitization
Vulnerability Spectre v2: Mitigation; CSV2, BHB
Vulnerability Srbds: Not affected
Vulnerability Tsa: Not affected
Vulnerability Tsx async abort: Not affected
Vulnerability Vmscape: Not affected
```
</details>
Comparing nullability-mismatch-22034 (f6d790ba8451a2aa77ab2c69e0f94dff5e45e2e9) to 9986525 (merge-base) [diff](https://github.com/apache/datafusion/compare/9986525d5ce777d4342eb3230083fab313d4ace1..f6d790ba8451a2aa77ab2c69e0f94dff5e45e2e9)
BENCH_NAME=sql_runner
BENCH_COMMAND=cargo bench --features=parquet --bench sql_runner
BENCH_FILTER=
Results will be posted here when complete
---
[File an issue](https://github.com/adriangb/datafusion-benchmarking/issues) against this benchmark runner
--
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-unsubscribe@datafusion.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscribe@datafusion.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: github-help@datafusion.apache.org
Re: [PR] Preserve recursive CTE nullability across logical and physical planning [datafusion]
Posted by "kosiew (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
kosiew closed pull request #22037: Preserve recursive CTE nullability across logical and physical planning
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/22037
--
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-unsubscribe@datafusion.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscribe@datafusion.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: github-help@datafusion.apache.org