### What changes were proposed in this pull request?
```
<extract expression> ::= EXTRACT <left paren> <extract field> FROM <extract source> <right paren>
<extract source> ::= <datetime value expression> | <interval value expression>
```
We now only support datetime values as extract source for `extract` expression but it's alternative function `date_part` supports both datetime and interval.
This pr adds interval value support for `extract` expression as extract source
### Why are the changes needed?
For ANSI compliance and the semantic consistency between extract and `date_part`, we support intervals for extract expressions.
### Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
yes, in the `extract(abc from xyz)` expression, the `xyz` can be intervals
### How was this patch tested?
add unit tests
Closes#27876 from yaooqinn/SPARK-31119.
Authored-by: Kent Yao <yaooqinn@hotmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com>
### What changes were proposed in this pull request?
fix the error caused by interval output in ExtractBenchmark
### Why are the changes needed?
fix a bug in the test
```scala
[info] Running case: cast to interval
[error] Exception in thread "main" org.apache.spark.sql.AnalysisException: Cannot use interval type in the table schema.;;
[error] OverwriteByExpression RelationV2[] noop-table, true, true
[error] +- Project [(subtractdates(cast(cast(id#0L as timestamp) as date), -719162) + subtracttimestamps(cast(id#0L as timestamp), -30610249419876544)) AS ((CAST(CAST(id AS TIMESTAMP) AS DATE) - DATE '0001-01-01') + (CAST(id AS TIMESTAMP) - TIMESTAMP '1000-01-01 01:02:03.123456'))#2]
[error] +- Range (1262304000, 1272304000, step=1, splits=Some(1))
[error]
[error] at org.apache.spark.sql.catalyst.util.TypeUtils$.failWithIntervalType(TypeUtils.scala:106)
[error] at org.apache.spark.sql.catalyst.analysis.CheckAnalysis.$anonfun$checkAnalysis$25(CheckAnalysis.scala:389)
[error] at org.a
```
### Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
no
### How was this patch tested?
re-run benchmark
Closes#27867 from yaooqinn/SPARK-31111.
Authored-by: Kent Yao <yaooqinn@hotmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com>
### What changes were proposed in this pull request?
In the PR, I propose to replace `.collect()`, `.count()` and `.foreach(_ => ())` in SQL benchmarks and use the `NoOp` datasource. I added an implicit class to `SqlBasedBenchmark` with the `.noop()` method. It can be used in benchmark like: `ds.noop()`. The last one is unfolded to `ds.write.format("noop").mode(Overwrite).save()`.
### Why are the changes needed?
To avoid additional overhead that `collect()` (and other actions) has. For example, `.collect()` has to convert values according to external types and pull data to the driver. This can hide actual performance regressions or improvements of benchmarked operations.
### Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No
### How was this patch tested?
Re-run all modified benchmarks using Amazon EC2.
| Item | Description |
| ---- | ----|
| Region | us-west-2 (Oregon) |
| Instance | r3.xlarge (spot instance) |
| AMI | ami-06f2f779464715dc5 (ubuntu/images/hvm-ssd/ubuntu-bionic-18.04-amd64-server-20190722.1) |
| Java | OpenJDK8/10 |
- Run `TPCDSQueryBenchmark` using instructions from the PR #26049
```
# `spark-tpcds-datagen` needs this. (JDK8)
$ git clone https://github.com/apache/spark.git -b branch-2.4 --depth 1 spark-2.4
$ export SPARK_HOME=$PWD
$ ./build/mvn clean package -DskipTests
# Generate data. (JDK8)
$ git clone gitgithub.com:maropu/spark-tpcds-datagen.git
$ cd spark-tpcds-datagen/
$ build/mvn clean package
$ mkdir -p /data/tpcds
$ ./bin/dsdgen --output-location /data/tpcds/s1 // This need `Spark 2.4`
```
- Other benchmarks ran by the script:
```
#!/usr/bin/env python3
import os
from sparktestsupport.shellutils import run_cmd
benchmarks = [
['sql/test', 'org.apache.spark.sql.execution.benchmark.AggregateBenchmark'],
['avro/test', 'org.apache.spark.sql.execution.benchmark.AvroReadBenchmark'],
['sql/test', 'org.apache.spark.sql.execution.benchmark.BloomFilterBenchmark'],
['sql/test', 'org.apache.spark.sql.execution.benchmark.DataSourceReadBenchmark'],
['sql/test', 'org.apache.spark.sql.execution.benchmark.DateTimeBenchmark'],
['sql/test', 'org.apache.spark.sql.execution.benchmark.ExtractBenchmark'],
['sql/test', 'org.apache.spark.sql.execution.benchmark.FilterPushdownBenchmark'],
['sql/test', 'org.apache.spark.sql.execution.benchmark.InExpressionBenchmark'],
['sql/test', 'org.apache.spark.sql.execution.benchmark.IntervalBenchmark'],
['sql/test', 'org.apache.spark.sql.execution.benchmark.JoinBenchmark'],
['sql/test', 'org.apache.spark.sql.execution.benchmark.MakeDateTimeBenchmark'],
['sql/test', 'org.apache.spark.sql.execution.benchmark.MiscBenchmark'],
['hive/test', 'org.apache.spark.sql.execution.benchmark.ObjectHashAggregateExecBenchmark'],
['sql/test', 'org.apache.spark.sql.execution.benchmark.OrcNestedSchemaPruningBenchmark'],
['sql/test', 'org.apache.spark.sql.execution.benchmark.OrcV2NestedSchemaPruningBenchmark'],
['sql/test', 'org.apache.spark.sql.execution.benchmark.ParquetNestedSchemaPruningBenchmark'],
['sql/test', 'org.apache.spark.sql.execution.benchmark.RangeBenchmark'],
['sql/test', 'org.apache.spark.sql.execution.benchmark.UDFBenchmark'],
['sql/test', 'org.apache.spark.sql.execution.benchmark.WideSchemaBenchmark'],
['sql/test', 'org.apache.spark.sql.execution.benchmark.WideTableBenchmark'],
['hive/test', 'org.apache.spark.sql.hive.orc.OrcReadBenchmark'],
['sql/test', 'org.apache.spark.sql.execution.datasources.csv.CSVBenchmark'],
['sql/test', 'org.apache.spark.sql.execution.datasources.json.JsonBenchmark']
]
print('Set SPARK_GENERATE_BENCHMARK_FILES=1')
os.environ['SPARK_GENERATE_BENCHMARK_FILES'] = '1'
for b in benchmarks:
print("Run benchmark: %s" % b[1])
run_cmd(['build/sbt', '%s:runMain %s' % (b[0], b[1])])
```
Closes#27078 from MaxGekk/noop-in-benchmarks.
Lead-authored-by: Maxim Gekk <max.gekk@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Maxim Gekk <maxim.gekk@databricks.com>
Co-authored-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dhyun@apple.com>
Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dhyun@apple.com>
### What changes were proposed in this pull request?
This PR regenerates the `sql/core` benchmarks in JDK8/11 to compare the result. In general, we compare the ratio instead of the time. However, in this PR, the average time is compared. This PR should be considered as a rough comparison.
**A. EXPECTED CASES(JDK11 is faster in general)**
- [x] BloomFilterBenchmark (JDK11 is faster except one case)
- [x] BuiltInDataSourceWriteBenchmark (JDK11 is faster at CSV/ORC)
- [x] CSVBenchmark (JDK11 is faster except five cases)
- [x] ColumnarBatchBenchmark (JDK11 is faster at `boolean`/`string` and some cases in `int`/`array`)
- [x] DatasetBenchmark (JDK11 is faster with `string`, but is slower for `long` type)
- [x] ExternalAppendOnlyUnsafeRowArrayBenchmark (JDK11 is faster except two cases)
- [x] ExtractBenchmark (JDK11 is faster except HOUR/MINUTE/SECOND/MILLISECONDS/MICROSECONDS)
- [x] HashedRelationMetricsBenchmark (JDK11 is faster)
- [x] JSONBenchmark (JDK11 is much faster except eight cases)
- [x] JoinBenchmark (JDK11 is faster except five cases)
- [x] OrcNestedSchemaPruningBenchmark (JDK11 is faster in nine cases)
- [x] PrimitiveArrayBenchmark (JDK11 is faster)
- [x] SortBenchmark (JDK11 is faster except `Arrays.sort` case)
- [x] UDFBenchmark (N/A, values are too small)
- [x] UnsafeArrayDataBenchmark (JDK11 is faster except one case)
- [x] WideTableBenchmark (JDK11 is faster except two cases)
**B. CASES WE NEED TO INVESTIGATE MORE LATER**
- [x] AggregateBenchmark (JDK11 is slower in general)
- [x] CompressionSchemeBenchmark (JDK11 is slower in general except `string`)
- [x] DataSourceReadBenchmark (JDK11 is slower in general)
- [x] DateTimeBenchmark (JDK11 is slightly slower in general except `parsing`)
- [x] MakeDateTimeBenchmark (JDK11 is slower except two cases)
- [x] MiscBenchmark (JDK11 is slower except ten cases)
- [x] OrcV2NestedSchemaPruningBenchmark (JDK11 is slower)
- [x] ParquetNestedSchemaPruningBenchmark (JDK11 is slower except six cases)
- [x] RangeBenchmark (JDK11 is slower except one case)
`FilterPushdownBenchmark/InExpressionBenchmark/WideSchemaBenchmark` will be compared later because it took long timer.
### Why are the changes needed?
According to the result, there are some difference between JDK8/JDK11.
This will be a baseline for the future improvement and comparison. Also, as a reproducible environment, the following environment is used.
- Instance: `r3.xlarge`
- OS: `CentOS Linux release 7.5.1804 (Core)`
- JDK:
- `OpenJDK Runtime Environment (build 1.8.0_222-b10)`
- `OpenJDK Runtime Environment 18.9 (build 11.0.4+11-LTS)`
### Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No.
### How was this patch tested?
This is a test-only PR. We need to run benchmark.
Closes#26003 from dongjoon-hyun/SPARK-29320.
Authored-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dhyun@apple.com>
Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dhyun@apple.com>
### What changes were proposed in this pull request?
Changed the `DateTimeUtils.getMilliseconds()` by avoiding the decimal division, and replacing it by setting scale and precision while converting microseconds to the decimal type.
### Why are the changes needed?
This improves performance of `extract` and `date_part()` by more than **50 times**:
Before:
```
Invoke extract for timestamp: Best Time(ms) Avg Time(ms) Stdev(ms) Rate(M/s) Per Row(ns) Relative Invoke extract for timestamp: Best Time(ms) Avg Time(ms) Stdev(ms) Rate(M/s) Per Row(ns) Relative
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cast to timestamp 397 428 45 25.2 39.7 1.0X
MILLISECONDS of timestamp 36723 36761 63 0.3 3672.3 0.0X
```
After:
```
Invoke extract for timestamp: Best Time(ms) Avg Time(ms) Stdev(ms) Rate(M/s) Per Row(ns) Relative
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cast to timestamp 278 284 6 36.0 27.8 1.0X
MILLISECONDS of timestamp 592 606 13 16.9 59.2 0.5X
```
### Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No
### How was this patch tested?
By existing test suite - `DateExpressionsSuite`
Closes#25871 from MaxGekk/optimize-epoch-millis.
Lead-authored-by: Maxim Gekk <max.gekk@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dhyun@apple.com>
Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dhyun@apple.com>
Kent Yao
Maxim Gekk
Dongjoon Hyun