We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
tree
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
SQL EXPLAIN
We are working on a new user focused explain format
The current explain format has a logical plan and a physical plan. This split is important for people developing DataFusion but not as much for users.
For example, the query like this
set datafusion.explain.format = "tree"; create table table1 ( int_col INT, string_col TEXT, bigint_col BIGINT, date_col DATE ) as VALUES (1, 'foo', 1, '2023-01-01'), (2, 'bar', 2, '2023-01-02'), (3, 'baz', 3, '2023-01-03'); 0 row(s) fetched. explain SELECT int_col FROM table1 WHERE string_col != 'foo' AND string_col != 'bar' AND string_col != 'a really long string constant'
The output looks like this (note the logical_plan line that is very wide)
logical_plan
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | plan_type | plan | +---------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | logical_plan | Projection: table1.int_col | | | Filter: table1.string_col != Utf8("foo") AND table1.string_col != Utf8("bar") AND table1.string_col != Utf8("a really long string constant") | | | TableScan: table1 projection=[int_col, string_col] | | physical_plan | ┌───────────────────────────┐ | | | │ CoalesceBatchesExec │ | | | └─────────────┬─────────────┘ | | | ┌─────────────┴─────────────┐ | | | │ FilterExec │ | | | │ -------------------- │ | | | │ predicate: │ | | | │string_col@1 != foo AND ...│ | | | └─────────────┬─────────────┘ | | | ┌─────────────┴─────────────┐ | | | │ DataSourceExec │ | | | │ -------------------- │ | | | │ partition_sizes: [1] │ | | | │ partitions: 1 │ | | | └───────────────────────────┘ | | | | +---------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ 2 row(s) fetched.
I would like to hide the logical plan in tree mode.
So for the example above, that would look something like
+---------------+---------------------------------------+ | plan_type | plan | +---------------+---------------------------------------+ | physical_plan | ┌───────────────────────────┐ | | | │ CoalesceBatchesExec │ | | | └─────────────┬─────────────┘ | | | ┌─────────────┴─────────────┐ | | | │ FilterExec │ | | | │ -------------------- │ | | | │ predicate: │ | | | │string_col@1 != foo AND ...│ | | | └─────────────┬─────────────┘ | | | ┌─────────────┴─────────────┐ | | | │ DataSourceExec │ | | | │ -------------------- │ | | | │ partition_sizes: [1] │ | | | │ partitions: 1 │ | | | └───────────────────────────┘ | | | | +---------------+--------------------------------------+
No response
I think this is a fairly straightforward issue and there are existing tests so marking as a good first issue
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
take
Sorry, something went wrong.
Thanks @pgadige !
I got so excited for this I made a PR here:
pgadige
Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.
Is your feature request related to a problem or challenge?
SQL EXPLAIN
Tree Rendering #14914We are working on a new user focused explain format
The current explain format has a logical plan and a physical plan. This split is important for people developing DataFusion but not as much for users.
For example, the query like this
The output looks like this (note the
logical_plan
line that is very wide)Describe the solution you'd like
I would like to hide the logical plan in tree mode.
So for the example above, that would look something like
Describe alternatives you've considered
No response
Additional context
I think this is a fairly straightforward issue and there are existing tests so marking as a good first issue
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: