-
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
GH-41140: [C#] Account for offset and length in union arrays #41165
Conversation
|
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 the fix!
After merging your PR, Conbench analyzed the 4 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on merge-commit 48a9639. There were no benchmark performance regressions. 🎉 The full Conbench report has more details. |
…pache#41165) ### Rationale for this change See apache#41140. This makes a sliced union array behave as expected without having to manually account for the array offset unless accessing the underlying buffers. ### What changes are included in this PR? Accounts for the offset and length when getting type ids, value offsets and field arrays for sparse and dense union arrays. ### Are these changes tested? Yes, I've updated the union array tests to cover this. ### Are there any user-facing changes? Yes, this is a user facing bug fix. * GitHub Issue: apache#41140 Authored-by: Adam Reeve <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Curt Hagenlocher <[email protected]>
…pache#41165) ### Rationale for this change See apache#41140. This makes a sliced union array behave as expected without having to manually account for the array offset unless accessing the underlying buffers. ### What changes are included in this PR? Accounts for the offset and length when getting type ids, value offsets and field arrays for sparse and dense union arrays. ### Are these changes tested? Yes, I've updated the union array tests to cover this. ### Are there any user-facing changes? Yes, this is a user facing bug fix. * GitHub Issue: apache#41140 Authored-by: Adam Reeve <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Curt Hagenlocher <[email protected]>
…pache#41165) ### Rationale for this change See apache#41140. This makes a sliced union array behave as expected without having to manually account for the array offset unless accessing the underlying buffers. ### What changes are included in this PR? Accounts for the offset and length when getting type ids, value offsets and field arrays for sparse and dense union arrays. ### Are these changes tested? Yes, I've updated the union array tests to cover this. ### Are there any user-facing changes? Yes, this is a user facing bug fix. * GitHub Issue: apache#41140 Authored-by: Adam Reeve <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Curt Hagenlocher <[email protected]>
### Rationale for this change See #41140. This makes a sliced union array behave as expected without having to manually account for the array offset unless accessing the underlying buffers. ### What changes are included in this PR? Accounts for the offset and length when getting type ids, value offsets and field arrays for sparse and dense union arrays. ### Are these changes tested? Yes, I've updated the union array tests to cover this. ### Are there any user-facing changes? Yes, this is a user facing bug fix. * GitHub Issue: #41140 Authored-by: Adam Reeve <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Curt Hagenlocher <[email protected]>
…pache#41165) ### Rationale for this change See apache#41140. This makes a sliced union array behave as expected without having to manually account for the array offset unless accessing the underlying buffers. ### What changes are included in this PR? Accounts for the offset and length when getting type ids, value offsets and field arrays for sparse and dense union arrays. ### Are these changes tested? Yes, I've updated the union array tests to cover this. ### Are there any user-facing changes? Yes, this is a user facing bug fix. * GitHub Issue: apache#41140 Authored-by: Adam Reeve <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Curt Hagenlocher <[email protected]>
…pache#41165) ### Rationale for this change See apache#41140. This makes a sliced union array behave as expected without having to manually account for the array offset unless accessing the underlying buffers. ### What changes are included in this PR? Accounts for the offset and length when getting type ids, value offsets and field arrays for sparse and dense union arrays. ### Are these changes tested? Yes, I've updated the union array tests to cover this. ### Are there any user-facing changes? Yes, this is a user facing bug fix. * GitHub Issue: apache#41140 Authored-by: Adam Reeve <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Curt Hagenlocher <[email protected]>
…pache#41165) ### Rationale for this change See apache#41140. This makes a sliced union array behave as expected without having to manually account for the array offset unless accessing the underlying buffers. ### What changes are included in this PR? Accounts for the offset and length when getting type ids, value offsets and field arrays for sparse and dense union arrays. ### Are these changes tested? Yes, I've updated the union array tests to cover this. ### Are there any user-facing changes? Yes, this is a user facing bug fix. * GitHub Issue: apache#41140 Authored-by: Adam Reeve <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Curt Hagenlocher <[email protected]>
Rationale for this change
See #41140. This makes a sliced union array behave as expected without having to manually account for the array offset unless accessing the underlying buffers.
What changes are included in this PR?
Accounts for the offset and length when getting type ids, value offsets and field arrays for sparse and dense union arrays.
Are these changes tested?
Yes, I've updated the union array tests to cover this.
Are there any user-facing changes?
Yes, this is a user facing bug fix.