mapleFU commented on code in PR #37100:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/37100#discussion_r1309092915
##########
cpp/src/arrow/compute/kernels/aggregate_basic_internal.h:
##########
@@ -891,6 +891,105 @@ struct NullMinMaxImpl : public ScalarAggregator {
}
};
+template <SimdLevel::type SimdLevel>
+struct DictionaryMinMaxImpl : public ScalarAggregator {
+ using ThisType = DictionaryMinMaxImpl<SimdLevel>;
+
+ DictionaryMinMaxImpl(std::shared_ptr<DataType> out_type,
ScalarAggregateOptions options)
+ : options(std::move(options)),
+ out_type(std::move(out_type)),
+ has_nulls(false),
+ count(0),
+ min(nullptr),
+ max(nullptr) {
+ this->options.min_count = std::max<uint32_t>(1, this->options.min_count);
+ }
+
+ Status Consume(KernelContext*, const ExecSpan& batch) override {
+ if (batch[0].is_scalar()) {
+ return Status::NotImplemented("No min/max implemented for
DictionaryScalar");
+ }
+
+ DictionaryArray arr(batch[0].array.ToArrayData());
+ this->has_nulls = arr.null_count() > 0;
+ this->count += arr.length() - arr.null_count();
+
+ Datum dict_values(arr.dictionary());
+ ARROW_ASSIGN_OR_RAISE(Datum result, MinMax(std::move(dict_values)));
Review Comment:
> I think we should still insist on the latter one. Since, for
DicionaryArray whose dictionary is already compacted, the latter implementation
could be faster a little.
Yeah I think it's ok, just move forward!
--
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]
