[MINOR]: Do not add unnecessary hash repartition to the physical plan #7667
Conversation
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
mustafasrepo
changed the title
|
We did one more review round and added some better commenting as well. I will go ahead and merge this, we can address any concerns in a follow-on PR should there be any. |
Ted-Jiang
pushed a commit
to Ted-Jiang/arrow-datafusion
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 7, 2023
…apache#7667) * Do not add unnecessary hash repartition * Add new test, move satisfy check to inside add_hash method * Improve comments --------- Co-authored-by: Mehmet Ozan Kabak <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Which issue does this PR close?
Closes #.
Rationale for this change
Sometimes in the physical plan I see
RepartitionHash(input_partition=1, output_partition=1). In these cases, hash repartitioning is unnecessary. This PR adds a check for this case.What changes are included in this PR?
Are these changes tested?
Yes, a new test is added to show that unnecessary hash repartition is not added to the physical plan. Even if operator requires hash repartitioning.
Are there any user-facing changes?