[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-16549?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17536392#comment-17536392
]
Vibhatha Lakmal Abeykoon commented on ARROW-16549:
--------------------------------------------------
cc [~westonpace] I think this make sense. Also it is easier for the user. I
think it would be okay to have it as a field within the `Aggregate` and put it
in `arrow::compute::` namespace as you're suggesting. But `call` is much
straight forward.
But to make it clear to the user, I would say the struct is fine for now. WDYT?
> [C++] Simplify AggregateNodeOptions aggregates/targets
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: ARROW-16549
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-16549
> Project: Apache Arrow
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: C++
> Reporter: Weston Pace
> Priority: Major
>
> Currently AggregateNodeOptions is:
> {noformat}
> class ARROW_EXPORT AggregateNodeOptions : public ExecNodeOptions {
> public:
> // aggregations which will be applied to the targetted fields
> std::vector<internal::Aggregate> aggregates;
> // fields to which aggregations will be applied
> std::vector<FieldRef> targets;
> // output field names for aggregations
> std::vector<std::string> names;
> // keys by which aggregations will be grouped
> std::vector<FieldRef> keys;
> };
> {noformat}
> It is not very obvious how {{aggregates}} and {{targets}} are related. My
> initial read of the comments led me to think that each aggregate would be
> applied to each target and you would end up with {{len(aggregates) *
> len(targets)}} output fields. In reality the {{aggregate}} at index {{i}}
> only applies to the {{target}} at index {{i}}. It would be simpler to add a
> {{FieldRef target}} to {{internal::Aggregate}} (and {{Aggregate}} should not
> be {{internal}}).
> Alternatively, the entire {{internal::Aggregate}} could be replaced by a
> "call" {{arrow::compute::Expression}}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.7#820007)
