feat(physical-plan): Allow co-partitioned Partitioning::Range inputs for left-side hash joins#23487
Draft
JSOD11 wants to merge 2 commits into
Draft
feat(physical-plan): Allow co-partitioned Partitioning::Range inputs for left-side hash joins#23487JSOD11 wants to merge 2 commits into
JSOD11 wants to merge 2 commits into
Conversation
| } | ||
|
|
||
| #[test] | ||
| fn left_hash_join_uses_range_partitioning() -> Result<()> { |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
sorry I am stalking the epic, heads up we are mainly doing dimple smoke tests in unit, then most coverage should be in range_partitioning.slt 🙇
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Which issue does this PR close?
Partitioning::Rangeinputs for left-side hash joins #23452Rationale for this change
What changes are included in this PR?
Are these changes tested?
Are there any user-facing changes?