This repository has been archived by the owner on Jun 14, 2024. It is now read-only.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Add config to use bucketed scan for filter indexes #329
Add config to use bucketed scan for filter indexes #329
Changes from 1 commit
9cf1fff
896456d
90094ff
4a03b10
b2d0675
b60a4e0
76e4307
fae1d31
c05724f
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.
Could you add a comment why this will always be false for the filter index rule? We will never take advantage of bucketing from the union right?
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.
It might be beneficial for later ops which requires bucketing, but just for filter index, we don't need it.
I think it's better to write a new rule for the cases if needed.
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.
Shall we add the comment to the code (since it's not straightforward to understand)?