Skip to content

feat: make DataFrame::create_physical_plan take &self instead of self#20562

Open
xanderbailey wants to merge 3 commits intoapache:mainfrom
xanderbailey:claude/physical-plan-without-consume-Z0dJp
Open

feat: make DataFrame::create_physical_plan take &self instead of self#20562
xanderbailey wants to merge 3 commits intoapache:mainfrom
xanderbailey:claude/physical-plan-without-consume-Z0dJp

Conversation

@xanderbailey
Copy link
Contributor

Which issue does this PR close?

Rationale for this change

Previously create_physical_plan consumed the DataFrame, making it impossible to inspect (e.g. log) the physical plan and then execute the same DataFrame (e.g. via write_parquet or collect) without first cloning it.

Since the method only needs &LogicalPlan (which it forwards to SessionState::create_physical_plan), there is no reason to take ownership. Changing the signature to &self makes the common pattern of "get plan for logging, then write/collect" work naturally.

Also removes the now-unnecessary self.clone() in DataFrame::cache that was introduced for the same reason.

What changes are included in this PR?

Changing self to &self

Are these changes tested?

Yes

Are there any user-facing changes?

Previously `create_physical_plan` consumed the `DataFrame`, making it
impossible to inspect (e.g. log) the physical plan and then execute the
same `DataFrame` (e.g. via `write_parquet` or `collect`) without first
cloning it.

Since the method only needs `&LogicalPlan` (which it forwards to
`SessionState::create_physical_plan`), there is no reason to take
ownership. Changing the signature to `&self` makes the common pattern
of "get plan for logging, then write/collect" work naturally.

Also removes the now-unnecessary `self.clone()` in `DataFrame::cache`
that was introduced for the same reason.

https://claude.ai/code/session_01F2BMik1KryMgRGUi9tTRSs
@github-actions github-actions bot added the core Core DataFusion crate label Feb 25, 2026
@xanderbailey xanderbailey force-pushed the claude/physical-plan-without-consume-Z0dJp branch from eb049e1 to 05fcdf5 Compare February 25, 2026 23:51
Copy link
Contributor

@neilconway neilconway left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lgtm. Does this constitute an API change?

Looks like a few more clones we can cleanup:

  • datafusion/core/tests/fuzz_cases/aggregate_fuzz.rs:564
  • datafusion/core/tests/physical_optimizer/aggregate_statistics.rs:380
  • datafusion/core/tests/dataframe/mod.rs:101-102

@xanderbailey
Copy link
Contributor Author

xanderbailey commented Feb 26, 2026

Hmm, I think maybe technically yes, df.create_physical_plan is fine because rust will auto ref this. I think

Dataframe::create_physical_plan(df)

is a break though...

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

core Core DataFusion crate

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Asking for a physical plan should not consume the dataframe

2 participants