Fix：fix HashJoin projection swap #12967
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
ptal @korowa @Dandandan |
korowa
approved these changes
Oct 16, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks like a proper fix as this projection is, indeed, redundant for projected HJ.
Thank you @my-vegetable-has-exploded
Co-authored-by: Eduard Karacharov <[email protected]>
berkaysynnada
approved these changes
Oct 18, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM, thanks @my-vegetable-has-exploded -- after you have fixed the clippy errors, we can merge this PR
|
thanks @korowa @berkaysynnada |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Which issue does this PR close?
ref #12491, #10978
If there is embeded projection in HashJoinExec, no need to add projection above hashjoin after swapping join order.
Thanks @onursatici for catching it.
Rationale for this change
What changes are included in this PR?
Are these changes tested?
Are there any user-facing changes?