feat(pyamber): compare table row counts

[carloea2]

What changes were proposed in this PR?

Require equal row counts before comparing table rows. This prevents the existing zip comparison from treating a shorter matching prefix as a fully equal table.

Any related issues, documentation, discussions?

Closes #8229

How was this PR tested?

python -c "import sys,pytest; sys.path[:0]=[worktree amber source, main amber source]; raise SystemExit(pytest.main(['amber/src/test/python/core/models/test_table.py','amber/src/test/python/pytexera/udf/test_udf_operator.py','-q','-p','no:cacheprovider']))"
71 passed

ruff check amber/src/main/python amber/src/test/python
All checks passed

ruff format --check amber/src/main/python amber/src/test/python
213 files already formatted

A direct post-fix probe covered different lengths in both directions and the equal case:

short_equals_long=False
long_equals_short=False
short_equals_same=True
lengths=1 2

Was this PR authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?

Generated-by: Codex

[github-actions]

Automated Reviewer Suggestions

Based on the git blame history of the changed files, we recommend the following reviewers:

• Contributors with relevant context: @aglinxinyuan
  You can notify them by mentioning @aglinxinyuan in a comment.

[github-actions]

Backport auto-label report

This fix: PR was checked against each actively-supported release branch. release/* labels drive the post-merge backport, so add or remove one to change where this fix lands.

Release branch	Analysis
⚠️ release/v1.3	Not labeled automatically — none of the files this PR modifies exist on this branch (amber/src/main/python/core/models/table.py, amber/src/test/python/core/models/test_table.py). The fix may target code that isn't on this release, or the files were moved/renamed after the branch was cut. Please check and add release/v1.3 by hand if this fix should be backported here.
✅ release/v1.2	Already labeled — this fix is queued to backport here.

Auto-label run.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 93.94%. Comparing base (70c2114) to head (a5e7859).
⚠️ Report is 12 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##               main    #8230   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     93.94%   93.94%           
  Complexity     4759     4759           
=========================================
  Files          1185     1185           
  Lines         48069    48069           
  Branches       5359     5359           
=========================================
  Hits          45159    45159           
  Misses         1480     1480           
  Partials       1430     1430           

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
access-control-service	81.00% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 70c2114
agent-service	99.32% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 70c2114
amber	89.99% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 70c2114
computing-unit-managing-service	73.67% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 70c2114
config-service	86.86% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 70c2114
file-service	87.91% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 70c2114
frontend	96.49% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 70c2114
notebook-migration-service	79.31% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 70c2114
pyamber	98.87% <100.00%> (ø)
workflow-compiling-service	77.19% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 70c2114

*This pull request uses carry forward flags. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[github-actions]

⚠️ Benchmark changes need a look

🟢 0 better · 🔴 2 worse · ⚪ 13 noise (<±5%) · 0 without baseline

Compared against main 70c2114 benchmarked on this same runner, so the delta is largely free of cross-runner hardware noise. The "7d avg" column still reflects the gh-pages dashboard. Treat <±5% as noise unless repeated.

Dashboard · Run

	config	throughput	MB/s	latency	max Δ latest / 7d
🔴	bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	378	0.231	25,332/34,588/34,588 us	🔴 -5.5% / 🔴 +122.0%
⚪	bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	791	0.483	123,662/157,465/157,465 us	⚪ within ±5% / 🔴 +46.8%
⚪	bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	928	0.566	1,078,004/1,136,247/1,136,247 us	⚪ within ±5% / 🔴 +11.1%

Baseline details

Latest main 70c2114 from same runner

config	metric	PR	latest main	7d avg	Δ latest	Δ 7d
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	378 tuples/sec	400 tuples/sec	787.98 tuples/sec	-5.5%	-52.0%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.231 MB/s	0.244 MB/s	0.481 MB/s	-5.3%	-52.0%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p50	25,332 us	24,686 us	12,593 us	+2.6%	+101.2%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p95	34,588 us	34,667 us	15,579 us	-0.2%	+122.0%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p99	34,588 us	34,667 us	18,786 us	-0.2%	+84.1%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	791 tuples/sec	800 tuples/sec	1,008 tuples/sec	-1.1%	-21.5%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.483 MB/s	0.488 MB/s	0.615 MB/s	-1.0%	-21.5%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p50	123,662 us	121,171 us	100,701 us	+2.1%	+22.8%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p95	157,465 us	162,898 us	107,244 us	-3.3%	+46.8%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p99	157,465 us	162,898 us	116,122 us	-3.3%	+35.6%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	928 tuples/sec	926 tuples/sec	1,042 tuples/sec	+0.2%	-10.9%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.566 MB/s	0.565 MB/s	0.636 MB/s	+0.2%	-11.0%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p50	1,078,004 us	1,080,273 us	981,959 us	-0.2%	+9.8%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p95	1,136,247 us	1,151,371 us	1,023,080 us	-1.3%	+11.1%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p99	1,136,247 us	1,151,371 us	1,051,697 us	-1.3%	+8.0%

Raw CSV

config_idx,batch_size,schema_width,string_len,num_batches,total_ms,total_tuples,total_bytes,tuples_per_sec,mb_per_sec,lat_p50_us,lat_p95_us,lat_p99_us
0,10,10,64,20,528.67,200,128000,378,0.231,25331.69,34587.90,34587.90
1,100,10,64,20,2528.05,2000,1280000,791,0.483,123661.73,157465.42,157465.42
2,1000,10,64,20,21562.54,20000,12800000,928,0.566,1078004.06,1136247.40,1136247.40

[Yicong-Huang]

I am converting this PR to a draft: please follow our PR template and mark it ready for review.

[carloea2]

The description now follows the current template, and this is ready for review.