Enforce JOIN plan to require condition #15334

goldmedal · 2025-03-20T15:31:21Z

Which issue does this PR close?

Related to JOIN should require ON condition #13486

Rationale for this change

When working on unparsing the plan optimized by ScalarSubqueryToJoin, I noticed it could generate a LEFT JOIN without the join condition.

Projection: customer.c_custkey [c_custkey:Int64]
  Filter: customer.c_custkey = __scalar_sq_1.max(orders.o_custkey) [c_custkey:Int64, c_name:Utf8, max(orders.o_custkey):Int64;N]
    Left Join:  [c_custkey:Int64, c_name:Utf8, max(orders.o_custkey):Int64;N]
      TableScan: customer [c_custkey:Int64, c_name:Utf8]
      SubqueryAlias: __scalar_sq_1 [max(orders.o_custkey):Int64;N]
        Projection: max(orders.o_custkey) [max(orders.o_custkey):Int64;N]
          Aggregate: groupBy=[[]], aggr=[[max(orders.o_custkey)]] [max(orders.o_custkey):Int64;N]
            TableScan: orders [o_orderkey:Int64, o_custkey:Int64, o_orderstatus:Utf8, o_totalprice:Float64;N]

The unparsing result will look like

SELECT 
  customer.c_custkey 
FROM 
  customer 
  LEFT JOIN (
    SELECT 
      max(orders.o_custkey) 
    FROM 
      orders
  ) AS __scalar_sq_1
WHERE 
  (
    customer.c_custkey = __scalar_sq_1."max(orders.o_custkey)"
  )

Most databases don't allow the join without the condition besides the cross join.

DuckDB

D select * from c1 left join c2;
Parser Error:
syntax error at or near ";"

Postgres

test=# select * from t1 left join t2;
ERROR:  syntax error at or near ";"
LINE 1: select * from t1 left join t2;

DataFusion

> select * from t1 left join t2;
+----+----+
| c1 | c1 |
+----+----+
| 1  | 1  |
+----+----+
1 row(s) fetched. 
Elapsed 0.005 seconds.

I prefer to align this behavior with others. It makes the logical plan created by DataFusion reliable.
#13486 also mentioned that join without condition isn't a valid SQL.

Because the cross-join has the same IR as the inner join without the condition, #13486 should be prevented from the SQL layer. Maybe we can consider to reopen apache/datafusion-sqlparser-rs#1552

What changes are included in this PR?

Enforce JOIN plan to require conditions when built
ScalarSubqueryToJoin will generate the LEFT JOIN plan with the condition True.

Are these changes tested?

yes

Are there any user-facing changes?

Besides INNER JOIN, the join syntax without condition is not allowed anymore.

goldmedal · 2025-03-20T15:32:20Z

datafusion/optimizer/src/push_down_limit.rs

@@ -861,167 +849,6 @@ mod test {
        assert_optimized_plan_equal(outer_query, expected)
    }

-    #[test]
-    fn limit_should_push_down_join_without_condition() -> Result<()> {


This case has never occurred now.

goldmedal · 2025-03-22T08:38:37Z

datafusion/sqllogictest/test_files/tpch/plans/q22.slt.part

@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ logical_plan
 07)------------Projection: customer.c_phone, customer.c_acctbal
 08)--------------LeftAnti Join: customer.c_custkey = __correlated_sq_1.o_custkey
 09)----------------Filter: substr(customer.c_phone, Int64(1), Int64(2)) IN ([Utf8View("13"), Utf8View("31"), Utf8View("23"), Utf8View("29"), Utf8View("30"), Utf8View("18"), Utf8View("17")])
-10)------------------TableScan: customer projection=[c_custkey, c_phone, c_acctbal], partial_filters=[substr(customer.c_phone, Int64(1), Int64(2)) IN ([Utf8View("13"), Utf8View("31"), Utf8View("23"), Utf8View("29"), Utf8View("30"), Utf8View("18"), Utf8View("17")])]
+10)------------------TableScan: customer projection=[c_custkey, c_phone, c_acctbal], partial_filters=[substr(customer.c_phone, Int64(1), Int64(2)) IN ([Utf8View("13"), Utf8View("31"), Utf8View("23"), Utf8View("29"), Utf8View("30"), Utf8View("18"), Utf8View("17")]), Boolean(true)]


I benchmarked to ensure the plan change won't impact the performance.

-------------------- Benchmark tpch_sf1.json -------------------- ┏━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┳━━━━━━━━━┳━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┳━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┓ ┃ Query ┃ main ┃ fix_join-check ┃ Change ┃ ┡━━━━━━━━━━━━━━╇━━━━━━━━━╇━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━╇━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┩ │ QQuery 1 │ 68.97ms │ 70.14ms │ no change │ │ QQuery 2 │ 18.72ms │ 18.55ms │ no change │ │ QQuery 3 │ 30.47ms │ 29.46ms │ no change │ │ QQuery 4 │ 21.45ms │ 21.77ms │ no change │ │ QQuery 5 │ 43.53ms │ 41.56ms │ no change │ │ QQuery 6 │ 14.39ms │ 14.88ms │ no change │ │ QQuery 7 │ 55.03ms │ 55.30ms │ no change │ │ QQuery 8 │ 41.24ms │ 39.45ms │ no change │ │ QQuery 9 │ 50.84ms │ 53.19ms │ no change │ │ QQuery 10 │ 44.85ms │ 44.83ms │ no change │ │ QQuery 11 │ 13.42ms │ 13.22ms │ no change │ │ QQuery 12 │ 28.49ms │ 28.20ms │ no change │ │ QQuery 13 │ 29.56ms │ 29.38ms │ no change │ │ QQuery 14 │ 23.03ms │ 24.40ms │ 1.06x slower │ │ QQuery 15 │ 33.59ms │ 34.98ms │ no change │ │ QQuery 16 │ 13.07ms │ 13.08ms │ no change │ │ QQuery 17 │ 58.00ms │ 58.67ms │ no change │ │ QQuery 18 │ 76.00ms │ 75.06ms │ no change │ │ QQuery 19 │ 39.99ms │ 38.40ms │ no change │ │ QQuery 20 │ 29.04ms │ 29.79ms │ no change │ │ QQuery 21 │ 62.14ms │ 64.14ms │ no change │ │ QQuery 22 │ 13.82ms │ 14.01ms │ no change │ └──────────────┴─────────┴────────────────┴──────────────┘ ┏━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┳━━━━━━━━━━┓ ┃ Benchmark Summary ┃ ┃ ┡━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━╇━━━━━━━━━━┩ │ Total Time (main) │ 809.65ms │ │ Total Time (fix_join-check) │ 812.45ms │ │ Average Time (main) │ 36.80ms │ │ Average Time (fix_join-check) │ 36.93ms │ │ Queries Faster │ 0 │ │ Queries Slower │ 1 │ │ Queries with No Change │ 21 │ └───────────────────────────────┴──────────┘

comphead · 2025-03-23T19:04:17Z

datafusion/sqllogictest/test_files/limit.slt

@@ -723,14 +723,14 @@ statement ok
 create table testSubQueryLimit (a int, b int) as values (1,2), (2,3), (3,4);

 query IIII
-select * from testSubQueryLimit as t1 join (select * from testSubQueryLimit limit 1) limit 10;
+select * from testSubQueryLimit as t1, (select * from testSubQueryLimit limit 1) limit 10;


why this change is needed?

I thought that It was an invalid SQL mentioned by #13486. But indeed, we can modify it after #13486 is fixed. I revert this change here.

comphead · 2025-03-23T19:06:42Z

datafusion/sqllogictest/test_files/join.slt.part

+
+# join condition is required
+query error join condition should not be empty
+SELECT * FROM t1 FULL JOIN t2


Please include also a cross join without filters like

SELECT * FROM t1 CROSS JOIN t2

comphead

lgtm thanks @goldmedal

goldmedal · 2025-03-26T00:52:16Z

Thanks @comphead and @alamb 👍

* add check for missing join condition * modify the tests * handle the cross join case * remove invald sql case * fix sqllogictests * fix for cross join case * revert the change for limit.slt * add cross join test

niebayes · 2025-04-21T07:33:41Z

@goldmedal I don't understand this change.
Previously, we have a sql:

select * from t
where (select sid from t) = (select a from t limit 1)
order by ts

which actually corresponds to the following:

select * from t where sid = some_value order by ts

The generated plan has a Left Join with a Filter: Boolean(true). I think this sql should not be impacted by this change.

goldmedal · 2025-04-21T11:55:21Z

@goldmedal I don't understand this change. Previously, we have a sql:
select * from t
where (select sid from t) = (select a from t limit 1)
order by ts

The ScalarSubquery will be transformed by ScalarSubqueryToJoin to a left join, and then this PR forces the left join to have a condition. So, in this PR, I added the True expression for the left join in ScalarSubqueryToJoin.

I think the result is expected.

* add check for missing join condition * modify the tests * handle the cross join case * remove invald sql case * fix sqllogictests * fix for cross join case * revert the change for limit.slt * add cross join test

github-actions bot added logical-expr Logical plan and expressions optimizer Optimizer rules sqllogictest SQL Logic Tests (.slt) labels Mar 20, 2025

goldmedal commented Mar 20, 2025

View reviewed changes

goldmedal marked this pull request as ready for review March 20, 2025 15:32

goldmedal marked this pull request as draft March 20, 2025 16:15

goldmedal marked this pull request as ready for review March 20, 2025 16:33

github-actions bot added the sql SQL Planner label Mar 20, 2025

goldmedal marked this pull request as draft March 22, 2025 06:19

goldmedal marked this pull request as ready for review March 22, 2025 07:39

goldmedal added 6 commits March 22, 2025 16:24

add check for missing join condition

a5b5591

modify the tests

42a4115

handle the cross join case

189e506

remove invald sql case

eee2223

fix sqllogictests

0449f0f

fix for cross join case

c7dc734

goldmedal commented Mar 22, 2025

View reviewed changes

comphead reviewed Mar 23, 2025

View reviewed changes

goldmedal added 2 commits March 24, 2025 18:57

revert the change for limit.slt

0eb4cfa

add cross join test

7765900

goldmedal force-pushed the fix/join-check branch from 1f0a00e to 7765900 Compare March 24, 2025 11:06

comphead approved these changes Mar 24, 2025

View reviewed changes

goldmedal mentioned this pull request Mar 25, 2025

fix(core): disable ScalarSubqueryToJoin Canner/wren-engine#1103

Merged

alamb merged commit 3e56ed2 into apache:main Mar 25, 2025
27 checks passed

goldmedal deleted the fix/join-check branch March 26, 2025 00:52

linhr mentioned this pull request Apr 8, 2025

Release DataFusion 47.0.0 (April 2025) #15072

Closed

39 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Enforce JOIN plan to require condition #15334

Enforce JOIN plan to require condition #15334

goldmedal commented Mar 20, 2025 •

edited

Loading

goldmedal Mar 20, 2025

goldmedal Mar 22, 2025

comphead Mar 23, 2025

goldmedal Mar 24, 2025

comphead Mar 23, 2025

comphead left a comment

goldmedal commented Mar 26, 2025

niebayes commented Apr 21, 2025 •

edited

Loading

goldmedal commented Apr 21, 2025

Enforce JOIN plan to require condition #15334

Enforce JOIN plan to require condition #15334

Conversation

goldmedal commented Mar 20, 2025 • edited Loading

Which issue does this PR close?

Rationale for this change

DuckDB

Postgres

DataFusion

What changes are included in this PR?

Are these changes tested?

Are there any user-facing changes?

goldmedal Mar 20, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

goldmedal Mar 22, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

comphead Mar 23, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

goldmedal Mar 24, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

comphead Mar 23, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

comphead left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

goldmedal commented Mar 26, 2025

niebayes commented Apr 21, 2025 • edited Loading

goldmedal commented Apr 21, 2025

goldmedal commented Mar 20, 2025 •

edited

Loading

niebayes commented Apr 21, 2025 •

edited

Loading