Dan Hecht has posted comments on this change. Change subject: IMPALA-3115: Hoist some variables out of loops in cross-compiled code. ......................................................................
Patch Set 6: (7 comments) http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/2661/6/be/src/exec/partitioned-hash-join-node-ir.cc File be/src/exec/partitioned-hash-join-node-ir.cc: Line 53: next_probe_row would it be simpler to not have this variable, but instead just use probe_batch_iterator.Get() in its place? Line 183: next_probe_row; i.e. this could be probe_batch_iterator.Get() http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/2661/6/be/src/runtime/row-batch.h File be/src/runtime/row-batch.h: Line 164: row_ = NULL; why do we have to special case the full case? can't we just require that row_idx <= capacity_? (And then if they are equal, we'll start with row_ == row_batch_end_, i.e. AtEnd(), which is what you'd expect? Line 170: TupleRow* IR_ALWAYS_INLINE Next() { add function comments for these methods. Line 172: DCHECK(row_ == NULL || row_ can't be NULL here. Line 173: (row_ - parent_->tuple_ptrs_) / num_tuples_per_row_ <= parent_->capacity_); Isn't this the same as DCHECK_LE(row_, row_batch_end_)? Line 398: I like this but please get a second opinion since we don't have a pattern like it currently. -- To view, visit http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/2661 To unsubscribe, visit http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/settings Gerrit-MessageType: comment Gerrit-Change-Id: Ic7152b1fb094b3c3574d203e3774f4297f2225dc Gerrit-PatchSet: 6 Gerrit-Project: Impala Gerrit-Branch: cdh5-trunk Gerrit-Owner: Michael Ho <[email protected]> Gerrit-Reviewer: Dan Hecht <[email protected]> Gerrit-Reviewer: Michael Ho <[email protected]> Gerrit-Reviewer: Tim Armstrong <[email protected]> Gerrit-HasComments: Yes
