Skip to content
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

Remove scan_parquet methods from LogicalPlanBuilder #2539

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
May 16, 2022

Conversation

andygrove
Copy link
Member

Which issue does this PR close?

Part of #2536

Rationale for this change

  • LogicalPlanBuilder should be in the same crate as LogicalPlan
  • LogicalPlanBuilder should not need to know about data sources & object stores but just TableSource

What changes are included in this PR?

  • Move some logic from LogicalPlanBuilder to SessionContext

There will be separate PRs to remove the other scan methods (parquet, json, avro).

Are there any user-facing changes?

Yes, this changes the LogicalPlanBuilder API

@andygrove andygrove added the api change Changes the API exposed to users of the crate label May 15, 2022
@andygrove andygrove self-assigned this May 15, 2022
@github-actions github-actions bot added the datafusion Changes in the datafusion crate label May 15, 2022
Copy link
Contributor

@alamb alamb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks like a nicer API to me -- thank you @andygrove

@alamb alamb merged commit 419adde into apache:master May 16, 2022
korowa pushed a commit to korowa/arrow-datafusion that referenced this pull request May 18, 2022
* Remove scan_parquet methods from LogicalPlanBuilder

* simplify code
@andygrove andygrove deleted the plan-builder-remove-parquet branch January 27, 2023 18:57
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
api change Changes the API exposed to users of the crate datafusion Changes in the datafusion crate
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants