Repository navigation
fix: consider input sizes before reusing join partitioning #25787
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
Open
ShayanGho
wants to merge
6
commits into
apache:main
Choose a base branch
from
ShayanGho:issue-25302-reference-size
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+177
−12
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
55e9ae0
fix: consider input sizes before reusing join partitioning
ShayanGho 15503e7
test: consolidate partitioned scan helpers
ShayanGho 0b1bc5d
Merge upstream main and resolve optimizer test conflicts
ShayanGho 1aab317
fix: reject only small references when a large input would adapt
ShayanGho b669fd0
Merge upstream main and pass stats_ctx through size checks
ShayanGho 13a7a19
test: cover the reference size gate and share the CollectLeft rule
ShayanGho 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 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
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
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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
Fine to handle in a follow-up under #25302, since comparing the big side's key min/max to the split points is its own PR. Size alone can't tell whether the ranges suit the big input. With a sort-merge join on 20M rows against an 8-row reference, this gate gives 183 vs 525 ms when all keys land in one range, but 156 vs 114 ms and 175 vs 145 ms when the ranges are already balanced. The slowdown comes from fewer early stops per partition plus hash skew, not from shuffling the reference.