ctsk commented on code in PR #15768:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/15768#discussion_r2051665380
##########
datafusion/physical-plan/src/repartition/mod.rs:
##########
@@ -298,25 +299,15 @@ impl BatchPartitioner {
.into_iter()
.enumerate()
.filter_map(|(partition, indices)| {
- let indices: PrimitiveArray<UInt32Type> =
indices.into();
(!indices.is_empty()).then_some((partition,
indices))
})
.map(move |(partition, indices)| {
// Tracking time required for repartitioned
batches construction
let _timer = partitioner_timer.timer();
+ let b: Vec<&RecordBatch> =
batches.iter().collect();
// Produce batches based on indices
- let columns = take_arrays(batch.columns(),
&indices, None)?;
-
- let mut options = RecordBatchOptions::new();
- options =
options.with_row_count(Some(indices.len()));
- let batch = RecordBatch::try_new_with_options(
- batch.schema(),
- columns,
- &options,
- )
- .unwrap();
-
+ let batch = interleave_record_batch(&b, &indices)?;
Review Comment:
Nice change, and a much clearer performance win than
https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/15479. I expect (without testing)
that these two PRs interact negatively with one another - Removing coalesce
will mean that the data is "more scattered" in memory and probably make
interleave work worse - as well as the computation of the left join keys.
--
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]
