-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 839
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
Fix for primitive and boolean take kernel for nullable indices with an offset #509
Merged
alamb
merged 3 commits into
apache:master
from
jhorstmann:take-nullable-indices-with-offset
Jun 30, 2021
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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.
Is it correct that this
0
is due to the fact thatnull_buf
was constructed viain the same
else
clause?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.
Yes, null_buf is newly constructed and initialized starting from 0, while the first buffer and offset pair are coming from the indices array which might have a non-0 offset.
There was a proposal before to push the offsets down into all buffers instead of storing it in the array. That way we wouldn't need to care about which array a buffer originally belonged too. But if we do that we'd still need a better abstraction for the validity bitmap and only access it via (chunked) iterators. I'm also not sure whether such a change would have an affect on FFI usage.