[SPARK-52233][SQL] Fix map_zip_with for Floating Point Types #50967
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
cloud-fan
reviewed
May 21, 2025
| getKeysWithIndexesBruteForce | ||
| keyType match { | ||
| case properEqualsType if TypeUtils.typeWithProperEquals(properEqualsType) => | ||
| getKeysWithIndexesFast |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
shall we simply changge getKeysWithIndexesFast to normalize the float/double values before putting into the hashmap?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Changed the code now, could you take one more look?
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
Fix to
map_zip_withexpression while handling floating point numbers.Why are the changes needed?
Previously we would run
getKeysWithIndexesFastwhich would use LinkedHashMap, which does not use proper equality on keys for floating point numbers. All NaNs would be treated in a different way. This PR aims to fix this behaviour.Example:
Output before:
Output after:
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
Yes, fixing the way expression works.
How was this patch tested?
Added tests to golden files.
Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
No.