rtadepalli opened a new pull request, #33822: URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/33822
Closes: https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues/32613 <!-- Thanks for opening a pull request! If this is your first pull request you can find detailed information on how to contribute here: * [New Contributor's Guide](https://arrow.apache.org/docs/dev/developers/guide/step_by_step/pr_lifecycle.html#reviews-and-merge-of-the-pull-request) * [Contributing Overview](https://arrow.apache.org/docs/dev/developers/overview.html) If this is not a [minor PR](https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#Minor-Fixes). Could you open an issue for this pull request on GitHub? https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues/new/choose Opening GitHub issues ahead of time contributes to the [Openness](http://theapacheway.com/open/#:~:text=Openness%20allows%20new%20users%20the,must%20happen%20in%20the%20open.) of the Apache Arrow project. Then could you also rename the pull request title in the following format? GH-${GITHUB_ISSUE_ID}: [${COMPONENT}] ${SUMMARY} or MINOR: [${COMPONENT}] ${SUMMARY} In the case of PARQUET issues on JIRA the title also supports: PARQUET-${JIRA_ISSUE_ID}: [${COMPONENT}] ${SUMMARY} --> ### Rationale for this change Dense union offsets are always non-strictly monotonic for any given child as mandated by the spec, The C++ implementation still assumes that the offsets may be in any order. This can be improved. ### What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> Just a change to eliminate looping over the size of a `DenseUnionArray` twice. ### Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> I am not functionally changing anything. All changes respect the spec, and behavior should be 1:1 with the existing implementation. I believe existing tests should suffice. ### Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> There are no user facing changes for this. <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `breaking-change` label. --> -- 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. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
