-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.7k
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
Push join build table values as filter incase of duplicates #12225
Merged
Merged
Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
0e7a6e2
Push join build table values as filter
rohangarg 439c959
Add tests for JoinableFactoryWrapper
rohangarg e4fc4b6
fixup! Push join build table values as filter
rohangarg e819ead
fixup! Add tests for JoinableFactoryWrapper
rohangarg fb74659
fixup! Push join build table values as filter
rohangarg 8a0e663
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into join_filter_pushdown
rohangarg 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
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
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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
Will we ever get
filters = Optional.empty()
anddropClause = true
? If so what is the expectation in that case?IMO, the NonnullPair is tough to think about here, so a special class would be better. That way it could have some javadocs about the expectations. Its constructor should also do any relevant invariant checks.
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, that can happen if the joinableClause has conditions on columns which only have nulls in it. Currently, in such a case I add a
FalseFilter
in place of the joinable clause - does that seem ok?Yes, completely agree. 👍 Thanks for the suggestion - I've made a holder instead of a pair and added documentation regarding its semantics.
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 makes sense to me. If the behavior is described in javadocs for the new holder class, that's even better.
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.
👍 thanks for suggestion - added to the javadocs for holder class