-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2k
fix: gc string view arrays in RepartitionExec #20500
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
Samyak2
wants to merge
4
commits into
apache:main
Choose a base branch
from
Samyak2:fix-repartition-string-view-counting
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+96
−34
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
76434f6
fix: gc string view arrays in RepartitionExec
Samyak2 f2e7076
fix: move gc to hash repartition only
Samyak2 0733758
test: add test for string view array in repartition
Samyak2 667ebb5
refactor: add gc_stringview_arrays util and use that
Samyak2 File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This test does not actually exercise the regression it is meant to cover.
It only checks that
repartitionreturns all rows. That would also pass before thegc()change.As a result, we still do not have a test that would catch the over-counting bug if this logic regresses.
Please add an assertion that observes the compaction or accounting behavior directly. For example:
get_array_memory_size()across the repartitioned outputs stays close to the original batch, instead of scaling with the number of output partitions.StringViewArraybuffer ownership after repartition, so outputs no longer all retain the original shared payload buffer.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, I did try to add a test that checks for memory size specifically, but it seemed a bit fragile to assert on those numbers. Let me try the other approaches, thanks!