[SPARK-51299][SQL][UI] MetricUtils.stringValue should filter metric values with initValue rather than a hardcoded value #50055
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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?
This PR proposes to use
initValue
of a metric inorg.apache.spark.util.MetricUtils.stringValue
instead of a hardcoded value0
to filter out invalid metric values. A new fieldinitValue
is added toSQLMetricInfo
andSQLPlanMetric
so it can be passed intoorg.apache.spark.util.MetricUtils.stringValue
to do the filtering accordingly.Why are the changes needed?
In method
org.apache.spark.util.MetricUtils.stringValue
, it uses a hardcoded value 0 to filter out invalid metric values for SIZE_METRIC, TIMING_METRIC and NS_TIMING_METRIC:val validValues = values.filter(_ >= 0)
However, in SQLMetrics it offers methods to create these types of metrics with initValue other than -1 (introduced in this PR #41555) :
def createSizeMetric(sc: SparkContext, name: String, initValue: Long = -1): SQLMetric = {
which means there is a chance that the metrics are created with a initValue != -1 and in this case the filter above will generate incorrect results.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No
How was this patch tested?
Existing UTs
Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
No.