-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.3k
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
[fix](parquet) parquet reader confuses logical/physical/slot id of columns #23198
Conversation
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
05258e3
to
73d18a8
Compare
run buildall |
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
(From new machine)TeamCity pipeline, clickbench performance test result: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
BE ut failed
73d18a8
to
fe6f999
Compare
run buildall |
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
(From new machine)TeamCity pipeline, clickbench performance test result: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
PR approved by anyone and no changes requested. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
PR approved by at least one committer and no changes requested. |
…lumns (#23198) `ParquetReader` confuses logical/physical/slot id of columns. If only reading the scalar types, there's nothing wrong, but when reading complex types, `RowGroup` and `PageIndex` will get wrong statistics. Therefore, if the query contains complex types and pushed-down predicates, the probability of the result set is incorrect.
Proposed changes
ParquetReader
confuses logical/physical/slot id of columns. If only reading the scalar types, there's nothing wrong, but when reading complex types,RowGroup
andPageIndex
will get wrong statistics. Therefore, if the query contains complex types and pushed-down predicates, the probability of the result set is incorrect.Further comments
If this is a relatively large or complex change, kick off the discussion at [email protected] by explaining why you chose the solution you did and what alternatives you considered, etc...