gene-bordegaray commented on PR #23627:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/23627#issuecomment-5013174868

   > I see how my wording was confusing. The matrix uses a neutral synthetic 
operator, so it's a shared-contract test, not a universal operator contract 
test.
   > 
   > It proves that once an operator enables Range satisfaction, the shared 
optimizer handles all 24 matrix combinations correctly. It does not prove that 
production aggregates, joins, and windows enable Range satisfaction or reach 
that shared logic correctly. `KeyPartitioningRequirementExec` enables Range 
satisfaction itself, so removing an opt-in or breaking an operator-specific 
path would leave the matrix green.
   > 
   > The mutations show this:
   > 
   > * Test 7 — aggregate preservation path
   > * Test 13 — partitioned-join guard
   > * Test 14 — join preservation path
   > * Tests 6 and 8 — same aggregate RoundRobin path, so one is redundant
   > 
   > To make the SLT file leaner, I could keep the neutral matrix for the 
shared contract and add a second Rust table using real aggregate and join 
plans. That would replace the optimizer-plan coverage of all the proposed SLT 
cases and allow them to be removed. The existing window SLTs would still 
protect the window operators. This would add roughly 80–100 lines to the 
existing Rust test file.
   > 
   > I'm new to this codebase, so I'll defer to you on whether the added Rust 
coverage is worthwhile or you'd rather just drop the SLT cases.
   
   @blinding-pixels this makes sense. Can we also add a disabled option for the 
preserve file partition in the matrix 👍 


-- 
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]

Reply via email to