GH-43994: [C++][Parquet] Fix schema conversion from two-level encoding nested list

[wgtmac]

Rationale for this change

The current C++ parquet implementation interprets following parquet schema as `array<struct<array:array>>, which is wrong:

  optional group a (LIST) {
    repeated group array (LIST) {
      repeated int32 array;
    }
  }

What changes are included in this PR?

According to the parquet spec, the above schema should be inferred as array<array<int>>.

Are these changes tested?

Yes, a test case has been added to verify the fix.

Are there any user-facing changes?

No.

• GitHub Issue: [C++][Parquet] Fix schema conversion from two-level encoding nested list #43994

[wgtmac]

@emkornfield @pitrou @mapleFU Would you mind taking a look? Thanks!

[mapleFU]

https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/blob/master/LogicalTypes.md#lists

Without legacy:

The element field encodes the list's element type and repetition. Element repetition must be required or optional.

With backward capability:

Some existing data does not include the inner element layer. For backward-compatibility, the type of elements in LIST-annotated structures should always be determined by the following rules:

1. If the repeated field is not a group, then its type is the element type and elements are required.
2. If the repeated field is a group with multiple fields, then its type is the element type and elements are required.
3. If the repeated field is a group with one field and is named either array or uses the LIST-annotated group's name with _tuple appended then the repeated type is the element type and elements are required.
4. Otherwise, the repeated field's type is the element type with the repeated field's repetition.

So, seems this hit the (1)?

[mapleFU]

Parquet schema is too tricky for me, I'd try to take a look at https://github.com/apache/parquet-java/blob/aec7bc64dffa373db678ab2fc8b46565b4c011a5/parquet-thrift/src/main/java/org/apache/parquet/thrift/ThriftSchemaConvertVisitor.java#L220 tomorrow...

[mapleFU]

I've check Java related code:
https://github.com/apache/parquet-java/blob/aec7bc64dffa373db678ab2fc8b46565b4c011a5/parquet-column/src/main/java/org/apache/parquet/schema/Type.java

https://github.com/apache/parquet-java/blob/aec7bc64dffa373db678ab2fc8b46565b4c011a5/parquet-hadoop/src/main/java/org/apache/parquet/format/converter/ParquetMetadataConverter.java#L145

I'll dive into it this after noon

[mapleFU]

Our ListToSchemaField is like this part of the code https://github.com/apache/parquet-java/blob/aec7bc64dffa373db678ab2fc8b46565b4c011a5/parquet-avro/src/main/java/org/apache/parquet/avro/AvroSchemaConverter.java#L397-L421

Should we port the impl and testings in that?

[wgtmac]

  optional group a (LIST) {
    repeated group array (LIST) {
      repeated int32 array;
    }
  }

IMO, the root cause is that the current code recognizes the schema above as a three-level encoding. However, the inner-most field can only be required or optional in three-level encoding, but here the int32 field is repeated. We can decouple the nesting field into two lists as below:

  outer_list:
  optional group a (LIST) {
    repeated group array (LIST) {}
  }

  inner_list:
  repeated group array (LIST) {
    repeated int32 array;
  }

It is obvious that inner_list can simply apply backward-compatibility rule (1). For the outer_list, the current code applies rule (3). I think we need to apply rule (4) here by modifying the rule (3) to below:

If the repeated field is a group with one required or optional field and is named either array or uses the LIST-annotated group's name with _tuple appended then the repeated type is the element type and elements are required.

[mapleFU]

Yes. It's so tricky, I think we can just copying the Java code directly, lol

[wgtmac]

Our ListToSchemaField is like this part of the code https://github.com/apache/parquet-java/blob/aec7bc64dffa373db678ab2fc8b46565b4c011a5/parquet-avro/src/main/java/org/apache/parquet/avro/AvroSchemaConverter.java#L397-L421

Should we port the impl and testings in that?

I think we are just missing check of this line: https://github.com/apache/parquet-java/blob/aec7bc64dffa373db678ab2fc8b46565b4c011a5/parquet-avro/src/main/java/org/apache/parquet/avro/AvroSchemaConverter.java#L588

[mapleFU]

What about this line: https://github.com/apache/parquet-java/blob/aec7bc64dffa373db678ab2fc8b46565b4c011a5/parquet-avro/src/main/java/org/apache/parquet/avro/AvroSchemaConverter.java#L587 ?

[mapleFU]

I think we are just missing check of this line

This fixing itself LGTM, but I just think should we test and align more...

[pitrou]

The current C++ parquet implementation interprets following parquet schema as `array<structarray:array>, which is wrong:

What is "array"? Do you mean "list"? Can you fix the PR description?

According to the parquet spec, the above schema should be inferred as array<array<int>>.

Where is this in the Parquet spec? I cannot find a similar example.

I have seen an issue when reading a Parquet file created by Hudi.

1. Can we check with the Parquet ML whether this is really a legitimate schema structure?
2. If so, can we add a testing file in parquet-testing?

[mapleFU]

Where is this in the Parquet spec? I cannot find a similar example.

The wording of the spec is very ambigious:

If the repeated field is not a group, then its type is the element type and elements are required.
If the repeated field is a group with multiple fields, then its type is the element type and elements are required.
If the repeated field is a group with one field and is named either array or uses the LIST-annotated group's name with _tuple appended then the repeated type is the element type and elements are required.
Otherwise, the repeated field's type is the element type with the repeated field's repetition.

I think this just following the rule(4): repeated field's type is the element type with the repeated field's repetition.

Can we check with the Parquet ML whether this is really a legitimate schema structure?
If so, can we add a testing file in parquet-testing?

I think maybe a testfile would be better

[wgtmac]

I‘m using Hive schema, so that's why it is array<array<int>>. The file could be easily produced by Spark Sql like below:

package org.example

import org.apache.spark.sql.SparkSession

object ParquetTwoLevelList {

  def main(args: Array[String]): Unit = {
    val spark = SparkSession.builder
      .master("local[1]")
      .appName("NestedListTest")
      .config("spark.serializer", "org.apache.spark.serializer.KryoSerializer")
      .config("spark.sql.catalog.spark_catalog", "org.apache.spark.sql.hudi.catalog.HoodieCatalog")
      .config("spark.sql.extensions", "org.apache.spark.sql.hudi.HoodieSparkSessionExtension")
      .config("spark.kryo.registrator", "org.apache.spark.HoodieSparkKryoRegistrar")
      .getOrCreate()
    spark.sql("CREATE TABLE nested_list_test (a array<array<int>>) USING HUDI")
    spark.sql("INSERT INTO nested_list_test VALUES ( array(array(1,2), array(3,4)) )")
  }

}

The parquet-cli prints the following metadata:

File path:  /Users/gangwu/Projects/hudi-spark-generator/spark-warehouse/nested_list_test/f92ed4b5-c063-4b94-90a4-5ef997db1a6c-0_0-13-12_20240911093900996.parquet
Created by: parquet-mr version 1.12.3 (build f8dced182c4c1fbdec6ccb3185537b5a01e6ed6b)
Properties:
  hoodie_bloom_filter_type_code: DYNAMIC_V0
  org.apache.hudi.bloomfilter: ***
  hoodie_min_record_key: 20240911093900996_0_0
  parquet.avro.schema: {"type":"record","name":"nested_list_test_record","namespace":"hoodie.nested_list_test","fields":[{"name":"_hoodie_commit_time","type":["null","string"],"doc":"","default":null},{"name":"_hoodie_commit_seqno","type":["null","string"],"doc":"","default":null},{"name":"_hoodie_record_key","type":["null","string"],"doc":"","default":null},{"name":"_hoodie_partition_path","type":["null","string"],"doc":"","default":null},{"name":"_hoodie_file_name","type":["null","string"],"doc":"","default":null},{"name":"a","type":["null",{"type":"array","items":["null",{"type":"array","items":["null","int"]}]}],"default":null}]}
  writer.model.name: avro
  hoodie_max_record_key: 20240911093900996_0_0
Schema:
message hoodie.nested_list_test.nested_list_test_record {
  optional binary _hoodie_commit_time (STRING);
  optional binary _hoodie_commit_seqno (STRING);
  optional binary _hoodie_record_key (STRING);
  optional binary _hoodie_partition_path (STRING);
  optional binary _hoodie_file_name (STRING);
  optional group a (LIST) {
    repeated group array (LIST) {
      repeated int32 array;
    }
  }
}


Row group 0:  count: 1  441.00 B records  start: 4  total(compressed): 441 B total(uncompressed):349 B
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        type      encodings count     avg size   nulls   min / max
_hoodie_commit_time     BINARY    G   _     1         68.00 B    0       "20240911093900996" / "20240911093900996"
_hoodie_commit_seqno    BINARY    G   _     1         72.00 B    0       "20240911093900996_0_0" / "20240911093900996_0_0"
_hoodie_record_key      BINARY    G   _     1         72.00 B    0       "20240911093900996_0_0" / "20240911093900996_0_0"
_hoodie_partition_path  BINARY    G   _     1         50.00 B    0       "" / ""
_hoodie_file_name       BINARY    G   _     1         116.00 B   0       "f92ed4b5-c063-4b94-90a4-5..." / "f92ed4b5-c063-4b94-90a4-5..."
a.array.array           INT32     G   _     4         15.75 B    0       "1" / "4"

-------------

[mapleFU]

@wgtmac Would you mind check testing file and add one if not exists in parquet-testing?

[wgtmac]

I will try to use parquet-java to create a minimal file and add it to parquet-testing. The file created by Hudi is too large due to a file-level bloom filter embedded in the file footer.

[wgtmac]

Gentle ping :) @emkornfield @pitrou @mapleFU

[mapleFU]

LGTM

[wgtmac]

@emkornfield Thanks for your review!

I've rebased it and the test failure in R / rhub/ubuntu-gcc12:latest is unrelated (observed the same error from other PRs). I'll merge it.

[pitrou]

Would have been nice to add a validation call here.

    ASSERT_OK(table->ValidateFull());

[conbench-apache-arrow]

After merging your PR, Conbench analyzed the 3 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on merge-commit a6fe595.

There were 132 benchmark results with an error:

• Commit Run on arm64-t4g-2xlarge-linux at 2024-11-25 07:38:33Z
  • tpch (R) with engine=arrow, format=parquet, language=R, memory_map=False, query_id=TPCH-07, scale_factor=1
  • tpch (R) with engine=arrow, format=native, language=R, memory_map=False, query_id=TPCH-09, scale_factor=1
• and 130 more (see the report linked below)

There were no benchmark performance regressions. 🎉

The full Conbench report has more details. It also includes information about 4 possible false positives for unstable benchmarks that are known to sometimes produce them.