[SPARK-54595][SQL] Keep existing behavior of MERGE INTO without SCHEMA EVOLUTION clause #53363
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
…out SCHEMA EVOLUTION clause" This reverts commit 6bf8c17.
szehon-ho
changed the title
dongjoon-hyun
changed the title
Member
|
Thank you, but this PR seems to break other test cases again, @szehon-ho . Please make the CI happy. |
Member
|
Gentle ping, @szehon-ho . |
Member
|
Gentle ping once more, @szehon-ho . 😄 |
Member
Author
|
Ah, i will fix this today. |
Member
Author
|
@dongjoon-hyun its fixed now, thanks! |
Member
|
Thank you always, @szehon-ho ! |
dongjoon-hyun
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 8, 2025
…A EVOLUTION clause ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? Keep existing behavior for MERGE INTO without SCHEMA EVOLUTION clause for UPDATE SET * and INSERT * as well as UPDATE struct or INSERT struct, to throw exception if the source and target schemas are not exactly the same. ### Why are the changes needed? As aokolnychyi tested this feature, he mentioned that as of Spark 4.1 the behavior is changed for MERGE INTO but without SCHEMA EVOLUTION clause. In particular: - Source has less columns/nested fields than target => we fill with NULL or DEFAULT for inserts, and existing value for Update. (though we disabled for nested structs by default in [[SPARK-54525](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-54525))](https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/53229) - Source has more columns/fields than target => we drop the extra fields. Initially, I thought its a good improvement of MERGE INTO and is not related to SCHEMA EVOLUTION exactly because the schema is not altered. But Anton has a good point that it may be a surprise to some user. So it may be better for now to be more conservative and keep the exact same behavior for without SCHEMA EVOLUTION clause. Note: this behavior is still enabled if SCHEMA EVOLUTION is specified, as the user then is more explicit about the decision. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No, this keeps behavior exactly the same as 4.0 without SCHEMA EVOLUTION clause. ### How was this patch tested? Added a test and changed existing test output to expect the exception if SCHEMA EVOLUTION is not specified. ### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? No Closes #53363 from szehon-ho/SPARK-54595-reapply. Authored-by: Szehon Ho <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit 70ee0e1) Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <[email protected]>
Member
|
Merged to master/4.1 for Apache Spark 4.1.0. |
xu20160924
pushed a commit
to xu20160924/spark
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 9, 2025
…A EVOLUTION clause ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? Keep existing behavior for MERGE INTO without SCHEMA EVOLUTION clause for UPDATE SET * and INSERT * as well as UPDATE struct or INSERT struct, to throw exception if the source and target schemas are not exactly the same. ### Why are the changes needed? As aokolnychyi tested this feature, he mentioned that as of Spark 4.1 the behavior is changed for MERGE INTO but without SCHEMA EVOLUTION clause. In particular: - Source has less columns/nested fields than target => we fill with NULL or DEFAULT for inserts, and existing value for Update. (though we disabled for nested structs by default in [[SPARK-54525](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-54525))](https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/53229) - Source has more columns/fields than target => we drop the extra fields. Initially, I thought its a good improvement of MERGE INTO and is not related to SCHEMA EVOLUTION exactly because the schema is not altered. But Anton has a good point that it may be a surprise to some user. So it may be better for now to be more conservative and keep the exact same behavior for without SCHEMA EVOLUTION clause. Note: this behavior is still enabled if SCHEMA EVOLUTION is specified, as the user then is more explicit about the decision. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No, this keeps behavior exactly the same as 4.0 without SCHEMA EVOLUTION clause. ### How was this patch tested? Added a test and changed existing test output to expect the exception if SCHEMA EVOLUTION is not specified. ### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? No Closes apache#53363 from szehon-ho/SPARK-54595-reapply. Authored-by: Szehon Ho <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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?
Keep existing behavior for MERGE INTO without SCHEMA EVOLUTION clause for UPDATE SET * and INSERT * as well as UPDATE struct or INSERT struct, to throw exception if the source and target schemas are not exactly the same.
Why are the changes needed?
As @aokolnychyi tested this feature, he mentioned that as of Spark 4.1 the behavior is changed for MERGE INTO but without SCHEMA EVOLUTION clause.
In particular:
Initially, I thought its a good improvement of MERGE INTO and is not related to SCHEMA EVOLUTION exactly because the schema is not altered. But Anton has a good point that it may be a surprise to some user. So it may be better for now to be more conservative and keep the exact same behavior for without SCHEMA EVOLUTION clause.
Note: this behavior is still enabled if SCHEMA EVOLUTION is specified, as the user then is more explicit about the decision.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No, this keeps behavior exactly the same as 4.0 without SCHEMA EVOLUTION clause.
How was this patch tested?
Added a test and changed existing test output to expect the exception if SCHEMA EVOLUTION is not specified.
Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
No