Implement ArrayEqual for UnionArray #1469

viirya · 2022-03-21T21:42:31Z

Which issue does this PR close?

Closes #67.

Rationale for this change

What changes are included in this PR?

Are there any user-facing changes?

codecov-commenter · 2022-03-21T21:59:59Z

Codecov Report

Merging #1469 (c4ee09a) into master (c5442cf) will increase coverage by 0.06%.
The diff coverage is 92.95%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1469      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   82.68%   82.75%   +0.06%     
==========================================
  Files         188      190       +2     
  Lines       54361    54702     +341     
==========================================
+ Hits        44951    45270     +319     
- Misses       9410     9432      +22

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
arrow/src/array/builder.rs	`86.68% <50.00%> (-0.05%)`	⬇️
arrow/src/array/equal/utils.rs	`74.45% <50.00%> (-3.24%)`	⬇️
arrow/src/array/equal/mod.rs	`93.98% <98.78%> (+0.65%)`	⬆️
arrow/src/array/equal/union.rs	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`
arrow/src/datatypes/datatype.rs	`66.40% <0.00%> (-0.40%)`	⬇️
arrow/src/datatypes/field.rs	`53.79% <0.00%> (-0.31%)`	⬇️
arrow/src/array/transform/mod.rs	`86.46% <0.00%> (-0.12%)`	⬇️
arrow/src/compute/kernels/filter.rs	`88.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
arrow/src/compute/kernels/length.rs	`100.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
arrow/src/ffi_stream.rs	`79.03% <0.00%> (ø)`
... and 8 more

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update c5442cf...c4ee09a. Read the comment docs.

tustvold

I think this is good, I've left some comments on how I think it could be made a lot faster which you can take or leave

tustvold · 2022-03-24T15:08:57Z

arrow/src/array/equal/union.rs

+};
+
+// Checks if corresponding slots in two UnionArrays are same data types
+fn equal_types(


In order to be equal the two arrays must have the same schema and therefore lhs_fields == rhs_fields I think therefore this could simply just compare the type_id arrays for equality directly?

Hmm, even type_ids are different, isn't it still possible that the union arrays are equal?

For example, the fields are int, int, float, string. If lhs type_ids is 1, but rhs type_id is 0, they are both int. We don't know if the actual element at child arrays are equal or not.

So here I compare if the type_ids are the same type or not, not its values.

And two union arrays could be equal even if two fields/type_ids are different. For example, we can change the field position and type_id, but the resulting union array is still the same.

In the case of two fields with the same type, I believe these must still have distinct field names and therefore there is a logical difference between values stored in one vs the other. I'm not sure about this though, possibly worth an upstream clarification 🤔

On the case of different field ordering the arrays can never compare equal as they have different data types.

equal_types was removed now.

tustvold · 2022-03-24T15:14:53Z

arrow/src/array/equal/union.rs

+}
+
+#[allow(clippy::too_many_arguments)]
+fn equal_sparse(


By the time we are calling this method we have established that

the types are equal

the null buffers are equal

the type ids arrays are equal

As such I'm surprised this can't just do a standard equality comparison of the child data, which will take into null buffers of the children

This is related to above question. As field and type_id can be changed in position, but the resulting union array is still the same, we cannot directly compare them, but can only compare child array corresponding to type_id.

I suppose it really does come down to "what does it mean for two UnionArrays to be equal"?

Can it ever be true that UnionArray(Int, Utf8) be equal to UnionArray(Utf8, Int)?

Given my reading of the cpp ArrayEquals code in https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/master/cpp/src/arrow/compare.cc it seems to me that two arrays are only ever "equal" if their datatypes are (exactly) equal.

Maybe we could follow the cpp implementation -- both for consistency as well as for simplicity?

Ah, if it is the case, we can simplify the comparison here. What I have in mind and implemented here can be thought as logically equal. That means corresponding slots of two union arrays are equal, but their physical layout may be different -- type_ids and fields can be different separately.

If we only want to compare the physical layout, then fields and type_ids are required to be exactly equal.

Thanks for pointing out the cpp implementation. We should follow it, I agree.

I will revise this change for that.

equal_sparse was simplified to compare corresponding child_data at given positions.

tustvold · 2022-03-24T15:20:31Z

arrow/src/array/equal/union.rs

+    lhs_slots_types.zip(rhs_slots_types).all(|(l, r)| l == r)
+}
+
+fn equal_dense(


Much like equal_sparse below, by the time we are calling this method we have already established equality of the type_ids, I therefore wonder if we can simply compute equality of the offsets arrays, followed by computing equality of the underlying child arrays.

This appears to be similar to what is done for list_equal 🤔

Even type_ids equality is established, lhs and rhs start positions might be different. So we cannot simply compare offsets arrays and child arrays for dense case.

tustvold · 2022-03-24T15:20:56Z

arrow/src/array/equal/utils.rs

-    lhs.data_type() == rhs.data_type() && lhs.len() == rhs.len()
+    let equal_type = match (lhs.data_type(), rhs.data_type()) {
+        (DataType::Union(l_fields, l_mode), DataType::Union(r_fields, r_mode)) => {
+            // Defer field datatype check to `union_equal`


Because even the lhs fields and rhs fields are different, the two union arrays are still possible equal. We cannot use fields to decide if two union arrays are equal or not. Fields and type_ids are co-related.

The spec describes a union as an ordered sequence of types with names. My interpretation of this is that the fields are order-sensitive and must be identical for the types to be the same...

Revised to compare lhs and rhs fields here.

tustvold · 2022-03-24T15:23:24Z

arrow/src/array/equal/utils.rs

+        DataType::Union(_, mode) => {
+            match mode {
+                UnionMode::Sparse => {
+                    // See the logic of `DataType::Struct` in `child_logical_null_buffer`.


Perhaps this could be broken out into a function? I also wonder if it might be possible to implement more efficiently by truncating the longer buffer 🤔

Made it as a function now.

alamb · 2022-03-27T10:47:56Z

I will try and review this PR more carefully tomorrow

viirya · 2022-03-27T16:46:05Z

Seems I missed some comments, I will address them soon. Thanks.

alamb

Looks like a nice step forward to me. Thank you @viirya

viirya · 2022-03-31T18:30:02Z

Thanks @alamb @tustvold

viirya added 3 commits March 20, 2022 00:28

init

25be3f3

more

f47151b

Remove dense/sparse case

d896a9b

github-actions bot added the arrow Changes to the arrow crate label Mar 21, 2022

viirya changed the title ~~Issue 67~~ Implement ArrayEqual for UnionArray Mar 21, 2022

Fix clippy

017a1ae

tustvold reviewed Mar 24, 2022

View reviewed changes

viirya added 4 commits March 27, 2022 15:30

For review

48f070f

Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into issue_67

9621ceb

Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into issue_67

11564d0

For review

c4ee09a

alamb approved these changes Mar 31, 2022

View reviewed changes

alamb merged commit 0575a94 into apache:master Mar 31, 2022

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Implement ArrayEqual for UnionArray #1469

Implement ArrayEqual for UnionArray #1469

viirya commented Mar 21, 2022

codecov-commenter commented Mar 21, 2022 •

edited

Loading

tustvold left a comment

tustvold Mar 24, 2022

viirya Mar 27, 2022 •

edited

Loading

viirya Mar 27, 2022

tustvold Mar 28, 2022 •

edited

Loading

viirya Mar 31, 2022

tustvold Mar 24, 2022

viirya Mar 27, 2022

alamb Mar 29, 2022

viirya Mar 29, 2022

viirya Mar 31, 2022

tustvold Mar 24, 2022

viirya Mar 31, 2022

tustvold Mar 24, 2022

viirya Mar 27, 2022

tustvold Mar 28, 2022

viirya Mar 31, 2022

tustvold Mar 24, 2022

viirya Mar 27, 2022

alamb commented Mar 27, 2022

viirya commented Mar 27, 2022

alamb left a comment

viirya commented Mar 31, 2022 •

edited

Loading

Implement ArrayEqual for UnionArray #1469

Implement ArrayEqual for UnionArray #1469

Conversation

viirya commented Mar 21, 2022

Which issue does this PR close?

Rationale for this change

What changes are included in this PR?

Are there any user-facing changes?

codecov-commenter commented Mar 21, 2022 • edited Loading

Codecov Report

tustvold left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

viirya Mar 27, 2022 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tustvold Mar 28, 2022 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

alamb commented Mar 27, 2022

viirya commented Mar 27, 2022

alamb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

viirya commented Mar 31, 2022 • edited Loading

codecov-commenter commented Mar 21, 2022 •

edited

Loading

viirya Mar 27, 2022 •

edited

Loading

tustvold Mar 28, 2022 •

edited

Loading

viirya commented Mar 31, 2022 •

edited

Loading