korowa opened a new pull request, #8538:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow-datafusion/pull/8538
## Which issue does this PR close?
<!--
We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and
enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can
link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example Closes #123
indicates that this PR will close issue #123.
-->
Part of #8130.
## Rationale for this change
<!--
Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in
the issue then this section is not needed.
Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your
changes and offer better suggestions for fixes.
-->
Structuring HashJoinStream processing logic based on @alamb [design
suggestion](https://github.com/apache/arrow-datafusion/issues/8130#issuecomment-1809237585)
from the issue.
## 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.
-->
- `HashJoinStream::poll_next_impl` splitted into more granular functions
which are used as a handlers, modifying stream state as their result
- `left_fut` & `visited_left_side` moved to HashJoinStream.build_side
BuildSide attribute -- the reason for storing build-side related data separate
from stream state, is that it allows to avoid redundant cloning of build side
contents across all state changes (as all handlers operate on `&mut self:
HashJoinStream`) and still keeps build-side available for reading/mutating
through references.
- utility structures / macros reused for HJ state management moved from
`stream_join_utils.rs` to `utils.rs` + `StreamJoinStateResult` renamed to
`StatefulStreamResult` -- seems reasonable as it is used for stateful streams
and not only for stream-like joins -- any naming or rolling back related
suggestions are welcome and appreciated.
## 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)?
-->
Covered by existing test cases.
## Are there any user-facing changes?
<!--
If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be
updated before approving the PR.
-->
No.
<!--
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]
