fix(spec): reserve 16 bytes for non-compact decimal in BinaryRow - #791
Merged
JingsongLi merged 1 commit intoSep 4, 2026
Merged
Conversation
JingsongLi
approved these changes
Sep 4, 2026
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
write_decimal_var_lenpads the variable-length part to a multiple of 8, but Javareserves 16 bytes for every non-compact Decimal —
AbstractBinaryWriter#writeDecimaldoes
ensureCapacity(16), zeroes both halves, and advances the cursor by 16unconditionally.
So whenever the minimal form fits in 8 bytes (
|unscaled| < 2^63, e.g.DECIMAL(38, 18)holding1.5) Rust writes a row 8 bytes shorter than Java's.Decoding is unaffected — both sides read the stored
(offset, size)— buthash_codehashes the whole buffer and feedsdefault_bucket, so the row lands ina different bucket than in Java.
The existing test uses
1e19, whose 9-byte minimal form already rounded up to 16,so this case had no coverage.