pepijnve commented on code in PR #23407:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/23407#discussion_r3554178502
##########
datafusion/physical-plan/src/sorts/merge.rs:
##########
@@ -171,24 +152,40 @@ impl<C: CursorValues> SortPreservingMergeStream<C> {
in_progress: BatchBuilder::new(schema, stream_count, batch_size,
reservation),
streams,
metrics,
- done: false,
- drain_in_progress_on_done: false,
cursors: (0..stream_count).map(|_| None).collect(),
prev_cursors: (0..stream_count).map(|_| None).collect(),
round_robin_tie_breaker_mode: false,
num_of_polled_with_same_value: vec![0; stream_count],
current_reset_epoch: 0,
poll_reset_epochs: vec![0; stream_count],
loser_tree: vec![],
- loser_tree_adjusted: false,
batch_size,
fetch,
produced: 0,
- uninitiated_partitions: (0..stream_count).collect(),
enable_round_robin_tie_breaker,
}
}
+ pub(crate) fn into_stream(self) -> SendableRecordBatchStream
+ where
+ C: 'static,
+ {
+ let schema_clone = Arc::clone(self.in_progress.schema());
+
+ let cloned_metrics = self.metrics.clone();
+
+ let mut this = self;
+ let stream = Gen::new(|co| async move {
Review Comment:
Looking at the implementation of `async-stream` and comparing to
`sync::Gen`, the `async-stream` implementation uses a thread local `Cell` while
`sync::Gen` uses a mutex. It's only one mutex acquire per batch of course, but
this does incur some cost compared to the code it's replacing. Is this a
concern if the intention would be to apply this pattern more generally?
--
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]
