-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 126
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
refactor!: merge result_evaluate
back to first_round_evaluate
#404
Conversation
53cc8fd
to
31a811e
Compare
31a811e
to
e632e7d
Compare
e632e7d
to
2d9fd7c
Compare
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.
This should be done for ProofExpr as well.
&self, | ||
builder: &mut FirstRoundBuilder, | ||
alloc: &'a Bump, | ||
table_map: &IndexMap<TableRef, Table<'a, S>>, | ||
) -> (Table<'a, S>, Vec<usize>); |
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.
NIT:
One of the motivations for doing this was so that the lengths could be part of the builder rather than an output.
🎉 This PR is included in version 0.55.0 🎉 The release is available on GitHub release Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
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.
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
Since we are adding range check which will require
FirstRoundBuilder
to read query results we partly undo #257 and mergeProofPlan::result_evaluate
back intoProofPlan::first_round_evaluate
.What changes are included in this PR?
See above.
Are these changes tested?
Yes.