### What changes were proposed in this pull request?
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/32015 added a way to run benchmarks much more easily in the same GitHub Actions build. This PR updates the benchmark results by using the way.
**NOTE** that looks like GitHub Actions use four types of CPU given my observations:
- Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8171M CPU 2.60GHz
- Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2673 v4 2.30GHz
- Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2673 v3 2.40GHz
- Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8272CL CPU 2.60GHz
Given my quick research, seems like they perform roughly similarly:
I couldn't find enough information about Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8272CL CPU 2.60GHz but the performance seems roughly similar given the numbers.
So shouldn't be a big deal especially given that this way is much easier, encourages contributors to run more and guarantee the same number of cores and same memory with the same softwares.
### Why are the changes needed?
To have a base line of the benchmarks accordingly.
### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change?
No, dev-only.
### How was this patch tested?
It was generated from:
- [Run benchmarks: * (JDK 11)](https://github.com/HyukjinKwon/spark/actions/runs/713575465)
- [Run benchmarks: * (JDK 8)](https://github.com/HyukjinKwon/spark/actions/runs/713154337)
Closes#32044 from HyukjinKwon/SPARK-34950.
Authored-by: HyukjinKwon <gurwls223@apache.org>
Signed-off-by: Max Gekk <max.gekk@gmail.com>
### What changes were proposed in this pull request?
1. Refactored `WithFields` Expression to make it more extensible (now `UpdateFields`).
2. Added a new `dropFields` method to the `Column` class. This method should allow users to drop a `StructField` in a `StructType` column (with similar semantics to the `drop` method on `Dataset`).
### Why are the changes needed?
Often Spark users have to work with deeply nested data e.g. to fix a data quality issue with an existing `StructField`. To do this with the existing Spark APIs, users have to rebuild the entire struct column.
For example, let's say you have the following deeply nested data structure which has a data quality issue (`5` is missing):
```
import org.apache.spark.sql._
import org.apache.spark.sql.functions._
import org.apache.spark.sql.types._
val data = spark.createDataFrame(sc.parallelize(
Seq(Row(Row(Row(1, 2, 3), Row(Row(4, null, 6), Row(7, 8, 9), Row(10, 11, 12)), Row(13, 14, 15))))),
StructType(Seq(
StructField("a", StructType(Seq(
StructField("a", StructType(Seq(
StructField("a", IntegerType),
StructField("b", IntegerType),
StructField("c", IntegerType)))),
StructField("b", StructType(Seq(
StructField("a", StructType(Seq(
StructField("a", IntegerType),
StructField("b", IntegerType),
StructField("c", IntegerType)))),
StructField("b", StructType(Seq(
StructField("a", IntegerType),
StructField("b", IntegerType),
StructField("c", IntegerType)))),
StructField("c", StructType(Seq(
StructField("a", IntegerType),
StructField("b", IntegerType),
StructField("c", IntegerType))))
))),
StructField("c", StructType(Seq(
StructField("a", IntegerType),
StructField("b", IntegerType),
StructField("c", IntegerType))))
)))))).cache
data.show(false)
+---------------------------------+
|a |
+---------------------------------+
|[[1, 2, 3], [[4,, 6], [7, 8, 9]]]|
+---------------------------------+
```
Currently, to drop the missing value users would have to do something like this:
```
val result = data.withColumn("a",
struct(
$"a.a",
struct(
struct(
$"a.b.a.a",
$"a.b.a.c"
).as("a"),
$"a.b.b",
$"a.b.c"
).as("b"),
$"a.c"
))
result.show(false)
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|a |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|[[1, 2, 3], [[4, 6], [7, 8, 9], [10, 11, 12]], [13, 14, 15]]|
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
```
As you can see above, with the existing methods users must call the `struct` function and list all fields, including fields they don't want to change. This is not ideal as:
>this leads to complex, fragile code that cannot survive schema evolution.
[SPARK-16483](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-16483)
In contrast, with the method added in this PR, a user could simply do something like this to get the same result:
```
val result = data.withColumn("a", 'a.dropFields("b.a.b"))
result.show(false)
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|a |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|[[1, 2, 3], [[4, 6], [7, 8, 9], [10, 11, 12]], [13, 14, 15]]|
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
```
This is the second of maybe 3 methods that could be added to the `Column` class to make it easier to manipulate nested data.
Other methods under discussion in [SPARK-22231](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-22231) include `withFieldRenamed`.
However, this should be added in a separate PR.
### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change?
The documentation for `Column.withField` method has changed to include an additional note about how to write optimized queries when adding multiple nested Column directly.
### How was this patch tested?
New unit tests were added. Jenkins must pass them.
### Related JIRAs:
More discussion on this topic can be found here:
- https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-22231
- https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-16483Closes#29795 from fqaiser94/SPARK-32511-dropFields-second-try.
Authored-by: fqaiser94@gmail.com <fqaiser94@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com>
HyukjinKwon
fqaiser94@gmail.com
