Skip to content
New issue

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

generate new projection plan in inline_table_scan instead of discarding #5371

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Feb 23, 2023

Conversation

jackwener
Copy link
Member

Which issue does this PR close?

Closes #.

Rationale for this change

In origin rule, we will discard all projection in table_scan.
This isn't a best choice. we can remain it.

What changes are included in this PR?

generate new projection plan accord by original projection in table_scan.

Are these changes tested?

Are there any user-facing changes?

@github-actions github-actions bot added the optimizer Optimizer rules label Feb 23, 2023
@jackwener jackwener changed the title fix inline_table_scan generate new projection plan in inline_table_scan instead of discarding Feb 23, 2023
@Dandandan
Copy link
Contributor

👍 can we add a test as well?

@jackwener
Copy link
Member Author

jackwener commented Feb 23, 2023

👍 can we add a test as well?

Added it. Thanks for reviewing.

Original inside-scan just own one field, I add another one field.

So, when table-scan projection is None, we will project two field.
If table-scan projection is vec[1], we will project first field.

Copy link
Contributor

@alamb alamb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think this code looks fine, but I don't understand the rationale for the change (e.g none of the overall plans changed) Maybe it is part of a larger project?

@jackwener
Copy link
Member Author

jackwener commented Feb 23, 2023

I think this code looks fine, but I don't understand the rationale for the change (e.g none of the overall plans changed) Maybe it is part of a larger project?

Yes! It's related with this #5366.

When I try to eliminate unnecessary projection. If we always projection all column, it will cause a bug.

limit_pushdown_view will fail in this rule.

@jackwener
Copy link
Member Author

Thanks @Dandandan and @alamb

@jackwener jackwener merged commit 095f934 into apache:main Feb 23, 2023
@jackwener jackwener deleted the enhance branch February 23, 2023 13:50
@ursabot
Copy link

ursabot commented Feb 23, 2023

Benchmark runs are scheduled for baseline = 3b8b94e and contender = 095f934. 095f934 is a master commit associated with this PR. Results will be available as each benchmark for each run completes.
Conbench compare runs links:
[Skipped ⚠️ Benchmarking of arrow-datafusion-commits is not supported on ec2-t3-xlarge-us-east-2] ec2-t3-xlarge-us-east-2
[Skipped ⚠️ Benchmarking of arrow-datafusion-commits is not supported on test-mac-arm] test-mac-arm
[Skipped ⚠️ Benchmarking of arrow-datafusion-commits is not supported on ursa-i9-9960x] ursa-i9-9960x
[Skipped ⚠️ Benchmarking of arrow-datafusion-commits is not supported on ursa-thinkcentre-m75q] ursa-thinkcentre-m75q
Buildkite builds:
Supported benchmarks:
ec2-t3-xlarge-us-east-2: Supported benchmark langs: Python, R. Runs only benchmarks with cloud = True
test-mac-arm: Supported benchmark langs: C++, Python, R
ursa-i9-9960x: Supported benchmark langs: Python, R, JavaScript
ursa-thinkcentre-m75q: Supported benchmark langs: C++, Java

jiangzhx pushed a commit to jiangzhx/arrow-datafusion that referenced this pull request Feb 24, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
optimizer Optimizer rules
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants