fix!: fix filter so that filter-filter and filter-slice compositions can work #401
Conversation
This file contains 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
iajoiner
changed the title
JayWhite2357
approved these changes
Dec 3, 2024
|
🎉 This PR is included in version 0.53.0 🎉 The release is available on GitHub release Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
iajoiner
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 4, 2024
Please be sure to look over the pull request guidelines here: https://github.com/spaceandtimelabs/sxt-proof-of-sql/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#submit-pr. # Please go through the following checklist - [x] The PR title and commit messages adhere to guidelines here: https://github.com/spaceandtimelabs/sxt-proof-of-sql/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md. In particular `!` is used if and only if at least one breaking change has been introduced. - [x] I have run the ci check script with `source scripts/run_ci_checks.sh`. - The following upstream PRs have been merged: - [x] #381 - [x] #401 - [x] #404 # Rationale for this change This PR replaces #121 and is designed to test whether our `ProofPlan`s are truly composable now. <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the linked issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. Example: Add `NestedLoopJoinExec`. Closes #345. Since we added `HashJoinExec` in #323 it has been possible to do provable inner joins. However performance is not satisfactory in some cases. Hence we need to fix the problem by implement `NestedLoopJoinExec` and speed up the code for `HashJoinExec`. --> # What changes are included in this PR? - add `SliceExec`. <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the ticket here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. Example: - Add `NestedLoopJoinExec`. - Speed up `HashJoinExec`. - Route joins to `NestedLoopJoinExec` if the outer input is sufficiently small. --> # Are these changes tested? <!-- 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)? Example: Yes. --> Yes.
2 tasks
iajoiner
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 4, 2024
…op level restriction to `GroupByExec` itself (#407) Please be sure to look over the pull request guidelines here: https://github.com/spaceandtimelabs/sxt-proof-of-sql/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#submit-pr. # Please go through the following checklist - [x] The PR title and commit messages adhere to guidelines here: https://github.com/spaceandtimelabs/sxt-proof-of-sql/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md. In particular `!` is used if and only if at least one breaking change has been introduced. - [x] I have run the ci check script with `source scripts/run_ci_checks.sh`. # Rationale for this change This PR is the equivalent of #401 for `GroupbyExec`. <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the linked issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. Example: Add `NestedLoopJoinExec`. Closes #345. Since we added `HashJoinExec` in #323 it has been possible to do provable inner joins. However performance is not satisfactory in some cases. Hence we need to fix the problem by implement `NestedLoopJoinExec` and speed up the code for `HashJoinExec`. --> # What changes are included in this PR? - Replace blanket 1 columns with columns with 1 up to input length in `GroupByExec`. - Move `GroupByExec` composition restriction to `GroupByExec` itself. <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the ticket here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. Example: - Add `NestedLoopJoinExec`. - Speed up `HashJoinExec`. - Route joins to `NestedLoopJoinExec` if the outer input is sufficiently small. --> # Are these changes tested? <!-- 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)? Example: Yes. --> Existing tests should pass.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Please be sure to look over the pull request guidelines here: https://github.com/spaceandtimelabs/sxt-proof-of-sql/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#submit-pr.
Please go through the following checklist
!is used if and only if at least one breaking change has been introduced.source scripts/run_ci_checks.sh.Rationale for this change
We need to make sure we use the correct table lengths in filter since that's why #379 failed till today. Thanks @JayWhite2357 for spotting the problem and providing the fix!
What changes are included in this PR?
c_fold * c_star - input_ones = 0constraintAre these changes tested?
Existing tests do pass. Moreover slicing tests pass.