lyne7-sc opened a new pull request, #22591:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/22591
## 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.
-->
- Closes #.
## Rationale for this change
When evaluating `Date32 - Date32` or `Date64 - Date64`, DataFusion needs to
return an Int64 representing the difference in days(after #19563). The current
implementation went through Arrow's sub_wrapping, then converted to Int64 days.
This allocates an unnecessary intermediate array and bypasses vectorized
kernels.
Since Date32/Date64 are just i32/i64 under the hood, we can compute the day
difference directly on the native values.
<!--
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.
-->
## What changes are included in this PR?
- Replace `apply_date_subtraction + duration_to_days` with
`subtract_date_to_days`, which operates directly on primitive values using
`binary()/unary()`
- Add date subtraction benchmarks
<!--
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.
-->
### Benchmarks
```
group baseline
optimized
----- --------
---------
date32_subtract/20_percent_nulls 21.16 30.9±4.15µs ? ?/sec
1.00 1462.0±129.72ns ? ?/sec
date32_subtract/no_nulls 18.32 21.9±2.72µs ? ?/sec
1.00 1196.5±123.89ns ? ?/sec
date64_subtract/20_percent_nulls 9.97 34.3±2.26µs ? ?/sec
1.00 3.4±0.12µs ? ?/sec
date64_subtract/no_nulls 7.65 25.3±2.77µs ? ?/sec
1.00 3.3±0.09µs ? ?/sec
```
## Are these changes tested?
Yes, new UTs and exist slt
<!--
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)?
-->
## Are there any user-facing changes?
No.
<!--
If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be
updated before approving the PR.
-->
<!--
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
