feat: scalar regex match physical expr

[zhuliquan]

Which issue does this PR close?

Closes #11146.

Rationale for this change

This PR is successor of PR #11455

BinaryExpr will compile literal regex pattern when it evaluating RecordBatch every time, Sometime, the time of compiling regex pattern is also expensive. In our approach, literal regex pattern will be compiled once and cached to be reused in execution. It's will save compile time of pre execution and speed up execution.

What changes are included in this PR?

1. Introducing a new physical expr ScalarRegexMatchExpr to handle regexp match with literal regrex pattern.
2. Introducing a message PhysicalScalarRegexMatchExprNode in proto to handle ScalarRegexMatchExpr and add arm in func parse_physical_expr and serialize_physical_expr.
3. Changing BinaryExpr arm in create_physical_expr. Creating ScalarRegexMatchExpr instead of BinaryExpr when Rhs is string literal expr and op is RegexMatch | RegexIMatch | RegexNotMatch | RegexNotIMatch.

Are these changes tested?

Yes, test mod in scalar_regex_match.rs

Are there any user-facing changes?

[alamb]

Thank you for this PR @zhuliquan . Have you run any benchmarks that show this approach is noticeably faster than the existing approach? It makes sense that it would be faster as it does not re-compile the regular expression for each batch, but I think it would help to quantify this difference

[zhuliquan]

Thank you for this PR @zhuliquan . Have you run any benchmarks that show this approach is noticeably faster than the existing approach? It makes sense that it would be faster as it does not re-compile the regular expression for each batch, but I think it would help to quantify this difference

yeah add benchmarks scalar_regex_match.rs which includes scalar_regex_match / binary_regex_match two type cases, these cases are varied from record_batch size and record_batch iterator time and regexp pattern. According to below benchmarks. almost scalar_regex_match is better than binary_expr in preformance of running time, and are even orders of magnitude different.

regex_email_rows_2000_run_time_10/binary_expr_match
                        time:   [4.2756 ms 4.3114 ms 4.3760 ms]
Found 11 outliers among 100 measurements (11.00%)
  3 (3.00%) high mild
  8 (8.00%) high severe
regex_email_rows_2000_run_time_10/scalar_regex_match
                        time:   [3.9034 ms 3.9070 ms 3.9114 ms]
Found 3 outliers among 100 measurements (3.00%)
  3 (3.00%) high severe

Benchmarking regex_url_rows_2000_run_time_10/binary_expr_match: Warming up for 3.0000 s
Warning: Unable to complete 100 samples in 5.0s. You may wish to increase target time to 5.3s, enable flat sampling, or reduce sample count to 60.
regex_url_rows_2000_run_time_10/binary_expr_match
                        time:   [1.0114 ms 1.0134 ms 1.0159 ms]
Found 19 outliers among 100 measurements (19.00%)
  5 (5.00%) high mild
  14 (14.00%) high severe
regex_url_rows_2000_run_time_10/scalar_regex_match
                        time:   [475.42 µs 475.88 µs 476.42 µs]
Found 14 outliers among 100 measurements (14.00%)
  4 (4.00%) high mild
  10 (10.00%) high severe

regex_ip_rows_2000_run_time_10/binary_expr_match
                        time:   [718.71 µs 719.81 µs 721.22 µs]
Found 13 outliers among 100 measurements (13.00%)
  3 (3.00%) high mild
  10 (10.00%) high severe
regex_ip_rows_2000_run_time_10/scalar_regex_match
                        time:   [128.02 µs 132.10 µs 136.87 µs]
Found 16 outliers among 100 measurements (16.00%)
  5 (5.00%) high mild
  11 (11.00%) high severe

regex_phone_rows_2000_run_time_10/binary_expr_match
                        time:   [5.7308 ms 5.8108 ms 5.9094 ms]
Found 13 outliers among 100 measurements (13.00%)
  7 (7.00%) high mild
  6 (6.00%) high severe
regex_phone_rows_2000_run_time_10/scalar_regex_match
                        time:   [134.89 µs 139.91 µs 146.52 µs]
Found 16 outliers among 100 measurements (16.00%)
  7 (7.00%) high mild
  9 (9.00%) high severe

regex_zip_code_rows_2000_run_time_10/binary_expr_match
                        time:   [4.1648 ms 4.1782 ms 4.1936 ms]
Found 3 outliers among 100 measurements (3.00%)
  2 (2.00%) high mild
  1 (1.00%) high severe
regex_zip_code_rows_2000_run_time_10/scalar_regex_match
                        time:   [126.49 µs 127.81 µs 129.32 µs]
Found 12 outliers among 100 measurements (12.00%)
  1 (1.00%) high mild
  11 (11.00%) high severe

[zhuliquan]

Thank you for this PR @zhuliquan . Have you run any benchmarks that show this approach is noticeably faster than the existing approach? It makes sense that it would be faster as it does not re-compile the regular expression for each batch, but I think it would help to quantify this difference

Hello @alamb, I have compared my approach to original binary_expr in many regex cases. Do I need to make explanations for benchmark scalar_regex_match?

[Dandandan]

I wonder if we can see improvements on queries in benchmarks with scalar regexes, e.g. clickbench?

[zhuliquan]

I wonder if we can see improvements on queries in benchmarks with scalar regexes, e.g. clickbench?

Emm, It means that we should add some regex matching queries in benchmarks first.

[zhuliquan]

I wonder if we can see improvements on queries in benchmarks with scalar regexes, e.g. clickbench?

hello, @Dandandan I have write a benchmark for testing scalar regex match in PR #13789. I got below diff (before: without pre-compiled pattern, after: with pre-compiled pattern)

test email address pattern
                        time:   [14.047 ms 14.155 ms 14.264 ms]
                        change: [+37.888% +41.826% +45.676%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
                        Performance has regressed.
Found 1 outliers among 100 measurements (1.00%)
  1 (1.00%) high mild

test ip pattern         time:   [3.5913 ms 3.6025 ms 3.6139 ms]
                        change: [-45.614% -45.332% -45.065%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
                        Performance has improved.
Found 2 outliers among 100 measurements (2.00%)
  2 (2.00%) high mild

test phone number pattern
                        time:   [12.893 ms 13.067 ms 13.303 ms]
                        change: [-51.353% -50.433% -49.409%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
                        Performance has improved.
Found 6 outliers among 100 measurements (6.00%)
  3 (3.00%) high mild

test html tag pattern   time:   [13.158 ms 13.491 ms 13.865 ms]
                        change: [+26.127% +29.636% +33.599%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
                        Performance has regressed.
Found 12 outliers among 100 measurements (12.00%)
  4 (4.00%) high mild
  8 (8.00%) high severe

test url pattern        time:   [12.467 ms 12.594 ms 12.726 ms]
                        change: [+38.072% +42.490% +45.651%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
                        Performance has regressed.
Found 6 outliers among 100 measurements (6.00%)
  2 (2.00%) low mild
  4 (4.00%) high mild
test date pattern       time:   [12.429 ms 12.523 ms 12.629 ms]
                        change: [-37.932% -37.049% -36.163%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
                        Performance has improved.

I'am very confused that some cases have improved and others have regressed.