2010YOUY01 commented on code in PR #20228:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/20228#discussion_r2787963863
##########
datafusion/physical-plan/src/joins/hash_join/exec.rs:
##########
@@ -1476,12 +1517,32 @@ impl ExecutionPlan for HashJoinExec {
filter: dynamic_filter,
build_accumulator: OnceLock::new(),
}),
+ fetch: self.fetch,
});
result = result.with_updated_node(new_node as Arc<dyn
ExecutionPlan>);
}
}
Ok(result)
}
+
+ fn supports_limit_pushdown(&self) -> bool {
+ // Hash join execution plan does not support pushing limit down
through to children
+ // because the children don't know about the join condition and can't
+ // determine how many rows to produce
+ false
+ }
+
+ fn fetch(&self) -> Option<usize> {
+ self.fetch
+ }
+
+ fn with_fetch(&self, limit: Option<usize>) -> Option<Arc<dyn
ExecutionPlan>> {
+ HashJoinExecBuilder::from(self)
Review Comment:
I think it would be better to make those resets explicit and avoid builders
with hidden semantics.
However this pattern has already propagated in the codebase, so I'd like to
continue the discussion in the original PR and see whether we can clean this up
or remove such patterns over time:
https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/19893#discussion_r2787434025
--
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
