sdd commented on code in PR #1017:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg-rust/pull/1017#discussion_r2179197908
##########
crates/iceberg/src/arrow/caching_delete_file_loader.rs:
##########
@@ -308,28 +319,231 @@ impl CachingDeleteFileLoader {
Ok(result)
}
- /// Parses record batch streams from individual equality delete files
- ///
- /// Returns an unbound Predicate for each batch stream
async fn parse_equality_deletes_record_batch_stream(
- streams: ArrowRecordBatchStream,
+ mut stream: ArrowRecordBatchStream,
+ equality_ids: HashSet<i32>,
) -> Result<Predicate> {
- // TODO
+ let mut result_predicate = AlwaysTrue;
+
+ while let Some(record_batch) = stream.next().await {
+ let record_batch = record_batch?;
+
+ if record_batch.num_columns() == 0 {
+ return Ok(AlwaysTrue);
+ }
+
+ let batch_schema_arrow = record_batch.schema();
+ let batch_schema_iceberg =
arrow_schema_to_schema(batch_schema_arrow.as_ref())?;
+
+ let mut datum_columns_with_names: Vec<_> = record_batch
+ .columns()
+ .iter()
+ .zip(batch_schema_iceberg.as_struct().fields())
+ // only use columns that are in the set of equality_ids for
this delete file
+ .filter(|(field, value)| equality_ids.contains(&value.id))
+ .map(|(column, field)| {
+ let col_as_datum_vec =
arrow_array_to_datum_iterator(column, field);
+ col_as_datum_vec.map(|c| (c, field.name.to_string()))
+ })
+ .try_collect()?;
+
+ // consume all the iterators in lockstep, creating per-row
predicates that get combined
+ // into a single final predicate
+
+ // (2025-06-12) can't use `is_empty` as it depends on unstable
library feature `exact_size_is_empty`
+ #[allow(clippy::len_zero)]
+ while datum_columns_with_names[0].0.len() > 0 {
+ let mut row_predicate = AlwaysTrue;
+ for &mut (ref mut column, ref field_name) in &mut
datum_columns_with_names {
+ if let Some(item) = column.next() {
+ if let Some(datum) = item? {
+ row_predicate = row_predicate
+
.and(Reference::new(field_name.clone()).equal_to(datum.clone()));
+ }
+ }
+ }
+ result_predicate = result_predicate.and(row_predicate.not());
Review Comment:
No, I'm trying to make it `!row_predicate1 and !row_predicate2`. Hence the
last line being `rewrite_not` rather than `negative`. Whether you negate each
predicate along the way and `and` them together, or `or` them together and
negate the entire combined predicate at the end, the result is logically the
same, no?
--
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]
