-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2k
chore: Clarify rehash setting in hash utils #20154
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
kumarUjjawal
wants to merge
6
commits into
apache:main
Choose a base branch
from
kumarUjjawal:chore/clarify_rehash
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and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
e489ec0
chore: Clarify rehash setting in hash utils
kumarUjjawal 1196cc0
make the naming consistent and refactor
kumarUjjawal e6153c2
remove apply_row_hash refactoring
kumarUjjawal 98a1fd9
remove redundant comments and handle null cases
kumarUjjawal ca19417
remove duplicate comments
kumarUjjawal 0fc807a
Merge branch 'main' into chore/clarify_rehash
Jefffrey 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
It's better to fix the naming than add a comment trying to explain the discrepency
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.
Made some changes, also did a minor refactor, there is another opportunity for the refactor to centralize the common “compute per-row nested hash → apply rehash (init vs combine) → hash null rows” logic in a shared helper, so each nested hasher mostly just computes a row_hash and delegates the buffer update/null handling. What do you think?
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.
I'd be careful of this approach, as we'd want to pull as many checks outside the hotloop as we can; checking
rehasheach time we compute a hash is inefficient compared to checking once before the loop, as many other functions here doThere 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.
Oh, Thanks for the heads up. Does the changes look good?
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.
I don't think we should take the approach of having a
apply_row_hashfunction as it currently is, per my reasoning above