You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
Aggregate spill: List<Dictionary> state whose values repeat within a group still fails under a memory limit #27240
An aggregate whose state holds a large dictionary can still fail with Failed to allocate additional ... after #25853 (which fixes #25851), when the dictionary values repeat within a group but not across groups. #25853 sizes a dictionary by the values its keys reference only when fewer than two keys reference each value on average; otherwise it counts the keys only and leaves the dictionary shared, as on main. A dictionary whose values repeat a few times within a group, but whose groups share no values, takes the shared path, and spill and replay batches still carry the whole dictionary.
To Reproduce
Measured with datafusion-cli (release-nonlto) at the head of #25853 (29c6661):
SETdatafusion.execution.target_partitions =1;
SELECTcount(*), sum(n) FROM (
SELECT (v /10) % 32AS k,
cardinality(array_agg(arrow_cast(concat(CAST(v /10ASVARCHAR), repeat('x', 100)), 'Dictionary(Int32, Utf8)'))) AS n
FROM generate_series(1, 5000000) AS t(v)
GROUP BY (v /10) % 32);
datafusion-cli -m 24M fails with Failed to allocate additional 24.7 MB for SingleHashAggregateStream[0] with 0.0 B already allocated for this reservation. It passes at -m 64M.
Changing only how often each value repeats in a group (v / 10 in both places):
repeats per value
-m 24M
2
passes
10
fails
50
passes
With 1000-byte values and target_partitions = 2, the final aggregate fails at -m 24M (Failed to allocate additional 16.8 MB for FinalHashAggregateStream[0]). With 1000-byte values and target_partitions = 1 over 2M rows, it fails at both 24M and 64M.
Expected behavior
The query completes under a memory limit large enough for one group, as the other repeat counts do.
Additional context
Compacting the dictionary of each spilled chunk would be cheap here, but whether it pays off depends on whether the groups share their values. If they do, each chunk writes its own copy and the spill file grows, which is why #25853 doesn't compact every dictionary (array_agg over 100 distinct 200-byte values spilled 371 MB, against 14.7 MB without compaction). Telling the two cases apart needs the number of distinct values referenced per row, which SpilledRowSizes doesn't track for List<Dictionary>.
Activity