stuhood commented on code in PR #23480:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/23480#discussion_r3575240899
##########
datafusion/physical-plan/src/joins/symmetric_hash_join.rs:
##########
@@ -415,23 +416,26 @@ impl ExecutionPlan for SymmetricHashJoinExec {
self.input_distribution_requirements().into_per_child()
}
- fn input_distribution_requirements(&self) ->
crate::InputDistributionRequirements {
- crate::InputDistributionRequirements::new(match self.mode {
+ fn input_distribution_requirements(&self) -> InputDistributionRequirements
{
+ match self.mode {
StreamJoinPartitionMode::Partitioned => {
let (left_expr, right_expr) = self
.on
.iter()
.map(|(l, r)| (Arc::clone(l) as _, Arc::clone(r) as _))
.unzip();
- vec![
+ InputDistributionRequirements::co_partitioned(vec![
Distribution::KeyPartitioned(left_expr),
Distribution::KeyPartitioned(right_expr),
- ]
+ ])
Review Comment:
> Add range-partitioning SLT coverage showing both joins repartitioned until
their dedicated Range opt-in work lands.
Is it worth TODOs next to both of the uses of
`InputDistributionRequirements::co_partitioned` linking to the relevant issues
which will do it? Alternatively, would it be reasonably to inline that
enabling? Otherwise it feels like this PR is nearly a noop.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
