Details

Type: Improvement

Status: Open

Priority: Minor

Resolution: Unresolved

Affects Version/s: 0.7.0

Fix Version/s: None

Component/s: impl

Labels:None
Description
The PushUpFilter rule is not able to handle complicated boolean expressions.
For example, SplitFilter rule is splitting one LOFilter into two by "AND". However it will not be able to split LOFilter if the top level operator is "OR". For example:
ex script:
A = load 'file_a' USING PigStorage(',') as (a1:int,a2:int,a3:int);
B = load 'file_b' USING PigStorage(',') as (b1:int,b2:int,b3:int);
C = load 'file_c' USING PigStorage(',') as (c1:int,c2:int,c3:int);
J1 = JOIN B by b1, C by c1;
J2 = JOIN J1 by $0, A by a1;
D = Filter J2 by ( (c1 < 10) AND (a3+b3 > 10) ) OR (c2 == 5);
explain D;
In the above example, the PushUpFilter is not able to push any filter condition across any join as it contains columns from all branches (inputs). But if we convert this expression into "Conjunctive Normal Form" (CNF) then we would be able to push filter condition c1< 10 and c2 == 5 below both join conditions. Here is the CNF expression for highlighted line:
( (c1 < 10) OR (c2 == 5) ) AND ( (a3+b3 > 10) OR (c2 ==5) )
Suggestion: It would be a good idea to convert LOFilter's boolean expression into CNF, it would then be easy to push parts (conjuncts) of the LOFilter boolean expression selectively. We would also not require rule SplitFilter anymore if we were to add this utility to rule PushUpFilter itself.
Reply from Yan Zhou:
The filter logic split problem can be divided into 2 parts:
1) the filtering logic that can be applied to individual input sources;
and 2) the filtering logic that has to be applied when merged(or joined)
inputs are processed.
The benefits for 1) are any benefits if the underlying storage supports
predicate pushdown; plus the memory/CPU savings by PIG for not
processing the unqualified rows.
For 2), the purpose is not paying higher evaluation costs than
necessary.
For 1), no normal form is necessary. The original logical expression
tree
can be trimmed off any subexpressions that are not constants nor just
from a particular input source. The complexity is linear with the tree
size; while the use of normal form could potentially lead to exponential
complexity. The difficulty with this approach is how to generate the
filtering logic for 2); while CNF can be used to easily figure out the
logic for 2). However, the exact logic in 2) might not be cheaper to
evaluate than the original logical expression. An example is "Filter J2
by ((C1 < 10) AND (a3+b3>10)) OR ((C2 == 5) AND (a2+b2 >5))". In 2) the
filtering logic after CNF will be "((C1 < 10) OR (a2+b2 > 5)) AND
((a3+b3>10) OR (C2 == 5)) AND ((a3+b3 >10) OR (a2+b2 > 5))". The cost
will be 5 logical evaluations (3 OR plus 2 AND), which could be reduced
to 4, compared with 3 logical evaluations in the original form.
In summary, if only 1) is desired, the tree trimming is enough. If 2) is
desired too, then CNF could be used but its complexity should be
controlled and the cost of the filtering logic evaluation in 2) should
be computed and compared with the original expression evaluation cost.
Further optimization is possible in this direction.
Another potential optimization to consider is to support logical
expression tree of multiple children vs. the binary tree after taking
into consideration of the commutative property of OR and AND operations.
The advantages are less tree traversal costs and easier to change the
evaluation ordering within the same subtree in order to maximize the
possibilities to shortcut the evaluations. Although this is general for
all logical expressions, this tends to be more suitable for normal form
handlings as normal forms group the subexpressions by the operators
that act on the subexpressions.