count distinct on NaN produces incorrect results

Describe the bug

In #1209 we now fall back to columnar shuffle in some cases where native shuffle is not supported, rather than just falling back to Spark. This caused some test failures in Spark SQL tests such as the following test that now produces incorrect results. This could potentially be a bug in columnar shuffle that we have not seen before.

This is from SPARK-32038: NormalizeFloatingNumbers should work on distinct aggregate.

Steps to reproduce

No response

Expected behavior

No response

Additional context

No response

@kazuyukitanimura

I can reproduce the issue in main so I am confused how this is currently passing when we run Spark SQL tests. Any idea @kazuyukitanimura or @parthchandra?

Here is my repro:

  test("SPARK-32038: NormalizeFloatingNumbers should work on distinct aggregate") {
    withSQLConf(CometConf.COMET_ENABLED.key -> "false") {
      val nan1 = java.lang.Float.intBitsToFloat(0x7f800001)
      val nan2 = java.lang.Float.intBitsToFloat(0x7fffffff)

      val df = Seq(
        ("mithunr", Float.NaN),
        ("mithunr", nan1),
        ("mithunr", nan2),
        ("abellina", 1.0f),
        ("abellina", 2.0f)).toDF("uid", "score")

      df.write.mode(SaveMode.Overwrite).parquet("test.parquet")
    }

    withSQLConf(CometConf.COMET_SHUFFLE_MODE.key -> "auto") {
      spark.read.parquet("test.parquet").createOrReplaceTempView("view")
      val df =
        spark.sql("select uid, count(distinct score) from view group by 1 order by 1 asc")
      checkSparkAnswer /*AndOperator*/ (df)
    }
  }

Produces:

== Results ==
!== Correct Answer - 2 ==                          == Spark Answer - 2 ==
 struct<uid:string,count(DISTINCT score):bigint>   struct<uid:string,count(DISTINCT score):bigint>
 [abellina,2]                                      [abellina,2]
![mithunr,1]                                       [mithunr,3]

The issue is presumably relateds to normalizing NaN and differences between Rust and JVM when comparing NaN to other NaN numbers.

Hmm can be an aggregation bug?

Here is a better repro:

  test("SPARK-32038: NormalizeFloatingNumbers should work on distinct aggregate") {
    val nan1 = java.lang.Float.intBitsToFloat(0x7f800001)
    val nan2 = java.lang.Float.intBitsToFloat(0x7fffffff)

    withSQLConf(CometConf.COMET_SHUFFLE_MODE.key -> "auto") {
      Seq(
        ("mithunr", Float.NaN),
        ("mithunr", nan1),
        ("mithunr", nan2),
        ("abellina", 1.0f),
        ("abellina", 2.0f)).toDF("uid", "score").createOrReplaceTempView("view")
      val df =
        spark.sql("select uid, count(distinct score) from view group by 1 order by 1 asc")
      checkSparkAnswer /*AndOperator*/ (df)
    }
  }

The test passes for shuffle mode auto or native and fails for jvm.

Query plan in auto mode passes because we fall back to Spark for most of the query:

AdaptiveSparkPlan isFinalPlan=false
+- CometSort [uid#7, count(DISTINCT score)#12L], [uid#7 ASC NULLS FIRST]
   +- CometColumnarExchange rangepartitioning(uid#7 ASC NULLS FIRST, 10), ENSURE_REQUIREMENTS, CometColumnarShuffle, [plan_id=528]
      +- HashAggregate(keys=[uid#7], functions=[count(distinct score#56)], output=[uid#7, count(DISTINCT score)#12L])
         +- Exchange hashpartitioning(uid#7, 10), ENSURE_REQUIREMENTS, [plan_id=523]
            +- HashAggregate(keys=[uid#7], functions=[partial_count(distinct score#56)], output=[uid#7, count#59L])
               +- HashAggregate(keys=[uid#7, score#56], functions=[], output=[uid#7, score#56])
                  +- Exchange hashpartitioning(uid#7, score#56, 10), ENSURE_REQUIREMENTS, [plan_id=519]
                     +- HashAggregate(keys=[uid#7, knownfloatingpointnormalized(normalizenanandzero(score#8)) AS score#56], functions=[], output=[uid#7, score#56])
                        +- LocalTableScan [uid#7, score#8]

Query plan in jvm mode:

   CometSort [uid#7, count(DISTINCT score)#12L], [uid#7 ASC NULLS FIRST]
   +- CometColumnarExchange rangepartitioning(uid#7 ASC NULLS FIRST, 10), ENSURE_REQUIREMENTS, CometColumnarShuffle, [plan_id=190]
      +- !CometHashAggregate [uid#7, count#35L], Final, [uid#7], [count(distinct score#32)]
         +- CometColumnarExchange hashpartitioning(uid#7, 10), ENSURE_REQUIREMENTS, CometColumnarShuffle, [plan_id=188]
            +- !CometHashAggregate [uid#7, score#32], Partial, [uid#7], [partial_count(distinct score#32)]
               +- CometHashAggregate [uid#7, score#32], [uid#7, score#32]
                  +- CometColumnarExchange hashpartitioning(uid#7, score#32, 10), ENSURE_REQUIREMENTS, CometColumnarShuffle, [plan_id=163]
                     +- HashAggregate(keys=[uid#7, knownfloatingpointnormalized(normalizenanandzero(score#8)) AS score#32], functions=[], output=[uid#7, score#32])
                        +- LocalTableScan [uid#7, score#8]

Perhaps we can fall back to Spark for count distinct on floating-point columns unless some config is set. We can explain the NaN issue in the compatibility guide.

I think that we will have to explicitly check if both sides of a floating point comparison are NaN to match Spark behavior. By definition NaN is not equal to NaN, so technically Comet is correct.
Falling back to Spark for floating point can be forced by a config value but I don't think we should do that by default.

Since filing this issue we discovered that Comet did not really support distinct aggregates (#1260) so that may at least have been a factor that contributed to this test failing.

This was fixed by upgrading to DF 48, which fixed a bug with counting distict NaNs in a grouped aggregate query

Navigation Menu

Repository navigation

count distinct on NaN produces incorrect results #1238

Describe the bug

Steps to reproduce

Expected behavior

Additional context

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

count distinct on NaN produces incorrect results #1238

Description

Describe the bug

Steps to reproduce

Expected behavior

Additional context

Activity

andygrove commented on Jan 8, 2025

kazuyukitanimura commented on Jan 9, 2025

andygrove commented on Jan 9, 2025

andygrove commented on Jan 9, 2025

andygrove commented on Jan 9, 2025

parthchandra commented on Jan 11, 2025

andygrove commented on Jan 13, 2025

andygrove commented on Jun 10, 2025

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions