alamb commented on code in PR #7401:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow-datafusion/pull/7401#discussion_r1320289203


##########
datafusion/core/src/physical_plan/wrapper.rs:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,169 @@
+// Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
+// or more contributor license agreements.  See the NOTICE file
+// distributed with this work for additional information
+// regarding copyright ownership.  The ASF licenses this file
+// to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the
+// "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance
+// with the License.  You may obtain a copy of the License at
+//
+//   http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
+//
+// Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing,
+// software distributed under the License is distributed on an
+// "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY
+// KIND, either express or implied.  See the License for the
+// specific language governing permissions and limitations
+// under the License.
+use arrow::row::{SortField, Rows};
+use arrow::datatypes::DataType;
+use arrow::error::ArrowError;
+use arrow_array::*;
+use arrow_array::cast::AsArray;
+use arrow::row::{RowConverter, Row};
+
+const LOW_CARDINALITY_THRESHOLD: usize = 10;

Review Comment:
   I wonder if we have any thoughts on the value `10` here -- would it make 
sense to use a number more like `256`? Or maybe we could do some performance 
testing
   
   @tustvold  do you have any thoughts on what the cutoff should be ?



##########
datafusion/core/src/physical_plan/mod.rs:
##########
@@ -402,6 +402,7 @@ pub mod union;
 pub mod unnest;
 pub mod values;
 pub mod windows;
+mod wrapper;

Review Comment:
   I recommend renaming this module to `row_converter` to better match what it 
contains



-- 
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]

Reply via email to