mbutrovich commented on PR #20806: URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/20806#issuecomment-4031576530
> My only other thought would be to think about the end game on how this will be most maintainable. > > Would this be easiest to maintain if it were _only_ a separate `Stream` implementation, with an ExecutionPlan shared with `SortMergeJoin`? We are downstream using a [physical optimizer rule to force `SortMergeJoin` to be used on sorted inputs](https://github.com/paradedb/paradedb/blob/f96213bf7675fbb81936fb52a339d62918f05761/pg_search/src/postgres/customscan/joinscan/planner.rs#L44-L68), and having only one "SortMergeJoin" operator (even if it had multiple backing implementations) would be a bit easier for us. I didn't look too closely at the rule, but I wonder if you could look for joins that both have `required_input_ordering()` and `maintains_input_order()` rather than the single `SortMergeJoin` operator. That said, the `Stream` implementation is an interesting idea and I'll see what that would look like. -- 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]
