alamb opened a new pull request, #7723:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow-datafusion/pull/7723

   ## Which issue does this PR close?
   
   closes https://github.com/apache/arrow-datafusion/issues/7722
   
   ## Rationale for this change
   
   While debugging an issue upgrading our code to use DataFuson, @ozankabak  
pointed me at the following config: 
https://github.com/apache/arrow-datafusion/pull/7671#discussion_r1341636365
   
   This setting (I think) controls if the DataFusion planner should prefer 
using the existing sort order or trying to maximize paralleilsm using 
repartition and re-sorting
   
   It turns out to be the right one, but I don't think I would have found it 
without @ozankabak 's suggestion
   
   I think the core of my challenge is that it more describes how it modifies 
DataFusion's algorithms rather than what effect it has on the plans
   
   ## What changes are included in this PR?
   I propose to change the config to `prefer_existing_sort` and update the 
documentation
   
   ## Are these changes tested?
   existing tests
   <!--
   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)?
   -->
   
   ## Are there any user-facing changes?
   yes, a config setting has a different name (and this is a breaking API 
change)
   <!--
   If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be 
updated before approving the PR.
   -->
   
   <!--
   If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api 
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]

Reply via email to