clintropolis commented on a change in pull request #8209: add mechanism to
control filter optimization in historical query processing
URL: https://github.com/apache/incubator-druid/pull/8209#discussion_r310810977
##########
File path:
extensions-core/druid-bloom-filter/src/main/java/org/apache/druid/query/filter/sql/BloomFilterOperatorConversion.java
##########
@@ -100,7 +100,8 @@ public DimFilter toDruidFilter(
return new BloomDimFilter(
druidExpression.getSimpleExtraction().getColumn(),
holder,
- druidExpression.getSimpleExtraction().getExtractionFn()
+ druidExpression.getSimpleExtraction().getExtractionFn(),
Review comment:
Yeah, this is true, but I was trying to avoid using these constructors in
production code to minimize the chance of errors and make things more obvious.
I initially had it more like you are suggesting and was using some of the
'test' constructors where we were always passing null, but [this
comment](https://github.com/apache/incubator-druid/pull/8209#discussion_r310319858)
suggested the way it is now and I agree, I think the production code
explicitly passing in `null` for the `filterTuning` parameter makes it less
ambiguous about if not having a tuning is intentional or not, without requiring
a comment.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
With regards,
Apache Git Services
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
