JakeDern commented on code in PR #10945:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow-rs/pull/10945#discussion_r3919708366
##########
arrow-select/src/take.rs:
##########
@@ -1581,12 +1594,43 @@ pub fn take_record_batch(
record_batch: &RecordBatch,
indices: &dyn Array,
) -> Result<RecordBatch, ArrowError> {
- let columns = record_batch
+ /*let columns = record_batch
.columns()
.iter()
.map(|c| take(c, indices, None))
.collect::<Result<Vec<_>, _>>()?;
- RecordBatch::try_new(record_batch.schema(), columns)
+ RecordBatch::try_new(record_batch.schema(), columns)*/
+ unsafe { take_record_batch_unchecked(record_batch, indices) }
+}
+
+/// Take rows by index from [`RecordBatch`], returning a new [`RecordBatch`],
without bounds
+/// checking.
+///
+/// # Safety
+///
+/// The caller must guarantee that every non-null value in `indices` is a
valid row index for
+/// `record_batch` (i.e. `index < record_batch.num_rows()`). Violating this
will cause a panic
+/// or undefined behaviour inside the inner kernels.
+///
+/// # Errors
+///
+/// Returns an [`ArrowError`] if `indices` is not an integer array type.
+pub unsafe fn take_record_batch_unchecked(
+ record_batch: &RecordBatch,
+ indices: &dyn Array,
+) -> Result<RecordBatch, ArrowError> {
+ downcast_integer_array!(
Review Comment:
Just catching up on this PR, so maybe dumb question on my part - Is there a
reason we don't call the existing `take` with `options.check_bounds = false` ?
--
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]
