alamb commented on code in PR #9096:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow-datafusion/pull/9096#discussion_r1474233579
##########
datafusion/core/src/physical_optimizer/projection_pushdown.rs:
##########
@@ -916,7 +916,9 @@ fn update_expr(
.find_map(|(index, (projected_expr, alias))| {
projected_expr.as_any().downcast_ref::<Column>().and_then(
|projected_column| {
-
column.name().eq(projected_column.name()).then(|| {
+ (column.name().eq(projected_column.name())
Review Comment:
There is another similar check a bit further down in the file in
`new_columns_for_join_on`
https://github.com/apache/arrow-datafusion/blob/c9049eda85683d958a39eca5fd3a382943ee7fa6/datafusion/core/src/physical_optimizer/projection_pushdown.rs#L1046
Likewise in new_indices_for_join_filter
https://github.com/apache/arrow-datafusion/blob/c9049eda85683d958a39eca5fd3a382943ee7fa6/datafusion/core/src/physical_optimizer/projection_pushdown.rs#L1132
I wonder if those checks need to extended to check the index as well? Maybe
we could extract the "find matching projection column" logic as a function 🤔
--
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: github-unsubscr...@arrow.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
