Skip to content
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

[C++] Refactor Acero scalar and hash aggregation into separate files #35979

Closed
ildipo opened this issue Jun 7, 2023 · 1 comment · Fixed by #35980
Closed

[C++] Refactor Acero scalar and hash aggregation into separate files #35979

ildipo opened this issue Jun 7, 2023 · 1 comment · Fixed by #35980

Comments

@ildipo
Copy link
Contributor

ildipo commented Jun 7, 2023

Describe the enhancement requested

Refactor the existing aggregate_node.cc into separate files (scalar and group aggregate respectively)

Component(s)

C++

@ildipo ildipo changed the title Acero - Add basic scalar and group-by window aggregation [C++] Acero - Add basic scalar and group-by window aggregation Jun 7, 2023
@icexelloss icexelloss changed the title [C++] Acero - Add basic scalar and group-by window aggregation [C++] Refactor Acero scalar and hash aggregation into separate files Jun 13, 2023
@icexelloss
Copy link
Contributor

I updated the issue since this is no longer to add window aggregations.

icexelloss pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jun 13, 2023
…ate files (#35980)

### Rationale for this change

Some refactoring to simplify relations development and pave the way for implementing window aggregation.

### What changes are included in this PR?

Existing Acero aggregation (scalar and group-by) sources have been refactored into separate files with no changes.

* Closes: #35979

Authored-by: Davide Pasetto <dpasetto69@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Li Jin <ice.xelloss@gmail.com>
@icexelloss icexelloss added this to the 13.0.0 milestone Jun 13, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants