feat: make DataFrame::create_physical_plan take &self instead of self#20562
Merged
alamb merged 4 commits intoapache:mainfrom Apr 6, 2026
Merged
Conversation
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
xanderbailey
force-pushed
the
claude/physical-plan-without-consume-Z0dJp
branch
from
eb049e1 to
05fcdf5
Compare
neilconway
approved these changes
Feb 26, 2026
Contributor
neilconway
left a comment
neilconway
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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
Contributor
Author
|
Hmm, I think maybe technically yes, is a break though... |
Contributor
|
@alamb This PR looks reasonable to me. |
alamb
approved these changes
Apr 3, 2026
Contributor
alamb
left a comment
alamb
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@alamb This PR looks reasonable to me.
I agree -- thanks @neilconway
THanks for this PR @xanderbailey -- it looks like an improvement to me
Dandandan
pushed a commit
to Dandandan/arrow-datafusion
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 8, 2026
…apache#20562) ## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Closes apache#20561 ## 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. <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> ## What changes are included in this PR? Changing `self` to `&self` <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> ## Are these changes tested? Yes <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. --> --------- Co-authored-by: xanderbailey <xanderbailey@users.noreply.github.com>
Rich-T-kid
pushed a commit
to Rich-T-kid/datafusion
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 21, 2026
…apache#20562) ## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes apache#123` indicates that this PR will close issue apache#123. --> - Closes apache#20561 ## 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. <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> ## What changes are included in this PR? Changing `self` to `&self` <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> ## Are these changes tested? Yes <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. --> --------- Co-authored-by: xanderbailey <xanderbailey@users.noreply.github.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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.
Which issue does this PR close?
Rationale for this change
Previously
create_physical_planconsumed theDataFrame, making it impossible to inspect (e.g. log) the physical plan and then execute the sameDataFrame(e.g. viawrite_parquetorcollect) without first cloning it.Since the method only needs
&LogicalPlan(which it forwards toSessionState::create_physical_plan), there is no reason to take ownership. Changing the signature to&selfmakes the common pattern of "get plan for logging, then write/collect" work naturally.Also removes the now-unnecessary
self.clone()inDataFrame::cachethat was introduced for the same reason.What changes are included in this PR?
Changing
selfto&selfAre these changes tested?
Yes
Are there any user-facing changes?