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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
Parquet: derive boundary order when writing #5110
Parquet: derive boundary order when writing #5110
Changes from 4 commits
4bd11dd
79fa0b9
f635e0a
d1f9835
86f5520
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
Tried putting the incremental check here instead of inside
update_column_offset_index(..)
as I couldn't figure out an easy way to get theT: ParquetValueType
out of aStatistics
enumOne caveat about putting this check here is that it compares the min/maxes before truncation occurs, though I think this should still be ok.
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.
Whilst I think this is correct, perhaps you could just change update_column_offset_index to instead take
Option<&ValueStatistics<T>>
? This would likely make the existing logic faster, and would make this logic perhaps slightly easier to follow - it is a little surprising that boundary_order is being updated outside of update_column_offset_index