Update cranelift requirement from 0.88.0 to 0.89.0 #123
Conversation
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
Updates the requirements on [cranelift](https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime) to permit the latest version. - [Release notes](https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/releases) - [Changelog](https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/blob/main/docs/WASI-some-possible-changes.md) - [Commits](https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/commits) --- updated-dependencies: - dependency-name: cranelift dependency-type: direct:production ... Signed-off-by: dependabot[bot] <support@github.com>
Author
|
The following labels could not be found: |
Author
|
Looks like cranelift is up-to-date now, so this is no longer needed. |
comphead
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 16, 2025
## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Closes #. Related to apache#18084 ## Rationale for this change Run extended suite on PRs for critical areas, to avoid post merge bugfixing <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. --> --------- Co-authored-by: Andrew Lamb <andrew@nerdnetworks.org>
comphead
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 16, 2025
## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Closes #. Followup on apache#18063 (review) ## Rationale for this change Use cheaper `NullBuffer::union` to apply null mask instead of iterator approach <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. -->
comphead
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 17, 2025
## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Closes #. Followup on apache#18063 (review) ## Rationale for this change Use cheaper `NullBuffer::union` to apply null mask instead of iterator approach <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. --> (cherry picked from commit 337378a)
comphead
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 17, 2025
## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Closes #. Followup on apache#18063 (review) ## Rationale for this change Use cheaper `NullBuffer::union` to apply null mask instead of iterator approach <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. --> (cherry picked from commit 337378a)
comphead
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 17, 2025
…unctions in proto (apache#18024) ## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Closes apache#17417. ## Rationale for this change <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> - Support `null_treatment`, `distinct`, and `filter` for window function in proto. - Support `null_treatment` for aggregate udf in proto. ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> - [x] Add `null_treatment`, `distinct`, `filter` fields to `WindowExprNode` message and handle them in `to/from_proto.rs`. - [x] Add `null_treatment` field to `AggregateUDFExprNode` message and handle them in `to/from_proto.rs`. - [ ] Docs update: I'm not sure where to add docs as declared in the issue description. ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> - Add tests to `roundtrip_window` for respectnulls, ignorenulls, distinct, filter. - Add tests to `roundtrip_aggregate_udf` for respectnulls, ignorenulls. ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. --> N/A --------- Co-authored-by: Jeffrey Vo <jeffrey.vo.australia@gmail.com>
comphead
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 17, 2025
## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Doesn't close an issue. ## Rationale for this change <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> Hi we are hiop, a Serverless Data Logistic Platform. We use DataFusion as a core part of our backend engine, and it plays a crucial role in our data infrastructure. Our team members are passionate about the project and actively try contribute to its development (@dariocurr). We’d love to have Hiop listed among the Known Users to show our support and help the DataFusion community continue to grow. ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> Just adding hiop as known user ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. -->
comphead
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 17, 2025
…8117) ## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Closes apache#3695 - Closes apache#3797 ## Rationale for this change <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> Was looking at above issues and I don't believe we skip the failed rules for any tests anymore (default for the config is also `false`), apart from this cleanup, so filing this PR so we can close the issues. Seems we only do in this `window.slt` test after this fix: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/blob/621a24978a7a9c6d2b27973d1853dbc8776a56b5/datafusion/sqllogictest/test_files/window.slt#L2587-L2611 Which seems intentional. ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> Remove unnecessary `skip_failed_rules` config. ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> Existing tests. ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> No. <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. -->
comphead
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 17, 2025
## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Closes #. ## Rationale for this change <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> `EXPLAIN ANALYZE` can be used for profiling and displays the results alongside the EXPLAIN plan. The issue is that it currently shows too many low-level details. It would provide a better user experience if only the most commonly used metrics were shown by default, with more detailed metrics available through specific configuration options. ### Example In `datafusion-cli`: ``` > CREATE EXTERNAL TABLE IF NOT EXISTS lineitem STORED AS parquet LOCATION '/Users/yongting/Code/datafusion/benchmarks/data/tpch_sf1/lineitem'; 0 row(s) fetched. Elapsed 0.000 seconds. explain analyze select * from lineitem where l_orderkey = 3000000; ``` The parquet reader includes a large number of low-level details: ``` metrics=[output_rows=19813, elapsed_compute=14ns, batches_split=0, bytes_scanned=2147308, file_open_errors=0, file_scan_errors=0, files_ranges_pruned_statistics=18, num_predicate_creation_errors=0, page_index_rows_matched=19813, page_index_rows_pruned=729088, predicate_cache_inner_records=0, predicate_cache_records=0, predicate_evaluation_errors=0, pushdown_rows_matched=0, pushdown_rows_pruned=0, row_groups_matched_bloom_filter=0, row_groups_matched_statistics=1, row_groups_pruned_bloom_filter=0, row_groups_pruned_statistics=0, bloom_filter_eval_time=21.997µs, metadata_load_time=273.83µs, page_index_eval_time=29.915µs, row_pushdown_eval_time=42ns, statistics_eval_time=76.248µs, time_elapsed_opening=4.02146ms, time_elapsed_processing=24.787461ms, time_elapsed_scanning_total=24.17671ms, time_elapsed_scanning_until_data=23.103665ms] ``` I believe only a subset of it is commonly used, for example `output_rows`, `metadata_load_time`, and how many file/row-group/pages are pruned, and it would better to only display the most common ones by default. ### Existing `VERBOSE` keyword There is a existing verbose keyword in `EXPLAIN ANALYZE VERBOSE`, however it's turning on per-partition metrics instead of controlling detail level. I think it would be hard to mix this partition control and the detail level introduced in this PR, so they're separated: the following config will be used for detail level and the semantics of `EXPLAIN ANALYZE VERBOSE` keep unchanged. ### This PR: configurable explain analyze level 1. Introduced a new config option `datafusion.explain.analyze_level`. When set to `dev` (default value), all existing metrics will be shown. If set to `summary`, only `BaselineMetrics` will be displayed (i.e. `output_rows` and `elapsed_compute`). Note now we only include `BaselineMetrics` for simplicity, in the follow-up PRs we can figure out what's the commonly used metrics for each operator, and add them to `summary` analyze level, finally set the `summary` analyze level to default. 2. Add a `MetricType` field associated with `Metric` for detail level or potentially category in the future. For different configurations, a certain `MetricType` set will be shown accordingly. #### Demo ``` -- continuing the above example > set datafusion.explain.analyze_level = summary; 0 row(s) fetched. Elapsed 0.000 seconds. > explain analyze select * from lineitem where l_orderkey = 3000000; +-------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | plan_type | plan | +-------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Plan with Metrics | CoalesceBatchesExec: target_batch_size=8192, metrics=[output_rows=5, elapsed_compute=25.339µs] | | | FilterExec: l_orderkey@0 = 3000000, metrics=[output_rows=5, elapsed_compute=81.221µs] | | | DataSourceExec: file_groups={14 groups: [[Users/yongting/Code/datafusion/benchmarks/data/tpch_sf1/lineitem/part-0.parquet:0..11525426], [Users/yongting/Code/datafusion/benchmarks/data/tpch_sf1/lineitem/part-0.parquet:11525426..20311205, Users/yongting/Code/datafusion/benchmarks/data/tpch_sf1/lineitem/part-1.parquet:0..2739647], [Users/yongting/Code/datafusion/benchmarks/data/tpch_sf1/lineitem/part-1.parquet:2739647..14265073], [Users/yongting/Code/datafusion/benchmarks/data/tpch_sf1/lineitem/part-1.parquet:14265073..20193593, Users/yongting/Code/datafusion/benchmarks/data/tpch_sf1/lineitem/part-2.parquet:0..5596906], [Users/yongting/Code/datafusion/benchmarks/data/tpch_sf1/lineitem/part-2.parquet:5596906..17122332], ...]}, projection=[l_orderkey, l_partkey, l_suppkey, l_linenumber, l_quantity, l_extendedprice, l_discount, l_tax, l_returnflag, l_linestatus, l_shipdate, l_commitdate, l_receiptdate, l_shipinstruct, l_shipmode, l_comment], file_type=parquet, predicate=l_orderkey@0 = 3000000, pruning_predicate=l_orderkey_null_count@2 != row_count@3 AND l_orderkey_min@0 <= 3000000 AND 3000000 <= l_orderkey_max@1, required_guarantees=[l_orderkey in (3000000)], metrics=[output_rows=19813, elapsed_compute=14ns] | | | | +-------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ 1 row(s) fetched. Elapsed 0.025 seconds. ``` Only `BaselineMetrics` are shown. ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 4. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> UT ## Are there any user-facing changes? No <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. --> --------- Co-authored-by: Andrew Lamb <andrew@nerdnetworks.org>
comphead
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 17, 2025
…e#18091) ## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> N/A ## Rationale for this change <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> There's a few functions in `datafusion/expr-common/src/type_coercion/aggregates.rs` that are unused elsewhere in the codebase, likely a remnant before the refactor to UDF, so removing them. Some are still used (`coerce_avg_type()` and `avg_return_type()`) so these are inlined into the Avg aggregate function (similar to Sum). Also refactor some window functions to use already available macros. ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> - Remove some unused functions - Inline avg coerce & return type logic - Refactor Spark Avg a bit to remove unnecessary code - Refactor ntile & nth window functions to use available macros ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> Existing tests. ## Are there any user-facing changes? Yes as these functions were publicly exported; however I'm not sure they were meant to be used by users anyway, given what they do. <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. -->
comphead
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 17, 2025
apache#18099) ## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> Fixes comparison errors when using dictionary-encoded types with comparison functions like NULLIF. ## Rationale for this change When using dictionary-encoded columns (e.g., Dictionary(Int32, Utf8)) in comparison operations with literals or other types, DataFusion would throw an error stating the types are not comparable. This was particularly problematic for functions like NULLIF which rely on comparison coercion. The issue was that comparison_coercion_numeric didn't handle dictionary types, even though the general comparison_coercion function did have dictionary support. <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> ## What changes are included in this PR? 1. Refactored dictionary comparison logic: Extracted common dictionary coercion logic into dictionary_comparison_coercion_generic to avoid code duplication. 2. Added numeric-specific dictionary coercion: Introduced dictionary_comparison_coercion_numeric that uses numeric-preferring comparison rules when dealing with dictionary value types. 3. Updated comparison_coercion_numeric: Added a call to dictionary_comparison_coercion_numeric in the coercion chain to properly handle dictionary types. 4. Added sqllogictest cases demonstrating the fix works for various dictionary comparison scenarios. <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> ## Are these changes tested? Yes, added tests in datafusion/sqllogictest/test_files/nullif.slt covering: - Dictionary type compared with string literal - String compared with dictionary type - Dictionary compared with dictionary All tests pass with the fix and would fail without it. <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> ## Are there any user-facing changes? This is a bug fix that enables previously failing queries to work correctly. No breaking changes or API modifications. <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. -->
alamb
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 18, 2025
## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Closes apache#18135 ## Rationale for this change <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. --> --------- Co-authored-by: Andrew Lamb <andrew@nerdnetworks.org>
comphead
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 24, 2025
## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Closes #. ## Rationale for this change <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. --> --------- Co-authored-by: Andrew Lamb <andrew@nerdnetworks.org>
comphead
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 24, 2025
…pache#17478) (apache#18130) ## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Related to apache#17405 - Related to apache#18072 ## Rationale for this change <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> See apache#17478 ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> See apache#17478 ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. --> Co-authored-by: Filippo Rossi <12383260+notfilippo@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Andrew Lamb <andrew@nerdnetworks.org>
comphead
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 24, 2025
…nics (apache#18013) (apache#18131) ## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Related to apache/datafusion-comet#2539 - Related to apache#18072 ## Rationale for this change <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> Return errors rather than panicking. ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. --> Co-authored-by: Andy Grove <agrove@apache.org> Co-authored-by: Andrew Lamb <andrew@nerdnetworks.org>
comphead
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 24, 2025
…amps (apache#17777) (apache#18129) ## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Related to apache#17776 - Related to apache#18072 ## Rationale for this change <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> If I've understood semantic equality correctly, any two timestamps should meet the bar for equality regardless of time units and timezones, but the current code doesn't reflect that. ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> Adds a branch to this method for timestamps. ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> Yes ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> Yes <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. --> --------- Co-authored-by: Shiv Bhatia <shivbhatia10@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Shiv Bhatia <sbhatia@palantir.com> Co-authored-by: Andrew Lamb <andrew@nerdnetworks.org>
comphead
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 24, 2025
…e#18161) (apache#18179) ## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Related to apache#18070 - Part of apache#18072 ## Rationale for this change Fix performance regression in Datafusion 50 ## What changes are included in this PR? Backport apache#18161 to `branch-50` ## Are these changes tested? Yes ## Are there any user-facing changes? Fix performance regression Co-authored-by: Yongting You <2010youy01@gmail.com>
comphead
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 27, 2025
## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Closes apache#16678. ## Rationale for this change <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> The issue has been fixed in apache#16639, this PR just adds a testcase for it. ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> Add a test case for `to_timestamp(double)` with vectorized input. Similar to the one presented in the issue. ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> Yes ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. --> No
comphead
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 27, 2025
## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Closes apache#18070 ## Rationale for this change <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> See the above issue and its comment apache#18070 (comment) ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> In nested loop join, when the join column includes `List(Utf8View)`, use `take()` instead of `to_array_of_size()` to avoid deep copying the utf8 buffers inside `Utf8View` array. This is the quick fix, avoiding deep copy inside `to_array_of_size()` is a bit tricky. Here is `ListArray`'s physical layout: https://arrow.apache.org/rust/arrow/array/struct.GenericListArray.html If multiple elements is pointing to the same list range, the underlying payload can't be reused.So the potential fix in `to_array_of_size` can only avoids copying the inner-inner utf8view array buffers, but can't avoid copying the inner array (i.e. views are still copied), and deep copying for other primitive types also can't be avoided. Seems this can be better solved when `ListView` type is ready 🤔 ### Benchmark I tried query 1 in apache#18070, but only used 3 randomly sampled `places` parquet file. 49.0.0: 4s 50.0.0: stuck > 1 minute PR: 4s Now the performance are similar, I suspect the most time is spend evaluating the expensive `array_has` so the optimization in apache#16996 can't help much. ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> Existing tests ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> No <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. --> --------- Co-authored-by: Andrew Lamb <andrew@nerdnetworks.org>
comphead
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 27, 2025
## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Closes apache#17913 . ## Rationale for this change <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> - Improve SQL code block rendering by upgrading `pydata-sphinx-theme` - fix sidebar layout ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 4. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> yes ## Are there any user-facing changes? documentation ui <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. -->
comphead
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 27, 2025
## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - part of apache#17427 ## Rationale for this change Adds regular joins (left, right, full, inner) for PWMJ as they behave differently in the code path. <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> ## What changes are included in this PR? Adds classic join + physical planner <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> ## Are these changes tested? Yes SLT tests + unit tests ## Follow up work to this pull request - Handling partitioned queries and multiple record batches (fuzz testing will be handled with this) - Simplify physical planning - Add more unit tests for different types (another pr as the LOC in this pr is getting a little daunting) next would be to implement the existence joins --------- Co-authored-by: Yongting You <2010youy01@gmail.com>
comphead
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 27, 2025
## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Closes apache#17854 . ## Rationale for this change <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. -->
comphead
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 27, 2025
…pache#18017) ## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Closes apache#17993 ## Rationale for this change ``` DataFusion CLI v50.1.0 > SET TIME ZONE = '+08:00'; 0 row(s) fetched. Elapsed 0.011 seconds. > SELECT arrow_typeof(now()); +---------------------------------------+ | arrow_typeof(now()) | +---------------------------------------+ | Timestamp(Nanosecond, Some("+08:00")) | +---------------------------------------+ 1 row(s) fetched. Elapsed 0.015 seconds. > SELECT count(1) result FROM (SELECT now() as n) a WHERE n > '2000-01-01'::date; +--------+ | result | +--------+ | 1 | +--------+ 1 row(s) fetched. Elapsed 0.029 seconds. ``` <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> ## What changes are included in this PR? When the timezone changes, re-register `now()` function <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. --> --------- Co-authored-by: Andrew Lamb <andrew@nerdnetworks.org>
comphead
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 27, 2025
## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Closes #. ## Rationale for this change According to three-valued logic we should return `null` and that's also what happens when the argument is not a constant as seen in the test. <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> ## What changes are included in this PR? Updated `ArrayHas::simplify` to explicitly handle `null` <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> ## Are these changes tested? Updated the `array_has` SQL test and added unit tests <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> ## Are there any user-facing changes? Yes, a minor change in behaviour wrt `null` <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. -->
comphead
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 27, 2025
## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Closes apache#16820 . ## Rationale for this change <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. -->
comphead
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 27, 2025
## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Part of apache#16602 ## Rationale for this change <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> Now we have to search in the code comment (or even implementation) to find the documentation of certain metrics, it would be better to open a page in the `user-guide` for metrics. The doc has to be manually updated, the metrics construction is scattered in the codebase, so it's hard to make it auto-generated. This PR only includes 2 common metrics, I plan to add more operator-specific metrics while working on apache#18116 ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. -->
comphead
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 19, 2025
…#18742) ## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Closes #. ## Rationale for this change <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> I noticed one rewritten predicate in the `PruningPredicate` documentation might not be correct. I have tried with example `datafusion/datafusion-examples/examples/query_planning/pruning.rs` to generate the rewritten predicate to confirm it: `x<5: x_null_count@1 != row_count@2 AND x_min@0 < 5` ### Fun side story I came across a thread on V2EX (a Chinese technical-ish community) titled “Have you ever read a technical book that felt truly satisfying?” Someone replied with a very specific section from the DataFusion documentation comment (the one this PR updates) <img width="964" height="155" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/c3c5f7f5-1b01-4cc6-ad96-8ab59560db24" /> I’ve read it — and it’s true 😆 , truly satisfying. I believe @alamb originally wrote it. ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. -->
comphead
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 19, 2025
## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Closes #. ## Rationale for this change <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> Added a top-level documentation in the error module, to explain the error types and existing macros. ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. -->
comphead
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 19, 2025
…-ffi (apache#18764) ## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Closes apache#18757. ## Rationale for this change <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> - enforce lint rule `clippy::needless_pass_by_value` to `datafusion-ffi`. ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. --> --------- Signed-off-by: StandingMan <jmtangcs@gmail.com>
comphead
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 19, 2025
## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Closes apache#18384 ## Rationale for this change Without a SQL-level reset, clients that SET DataFusion options have to rebuild the session to recover defaults <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> ## What changes are included in this PR? - Extended the config macros/traits so every namespace knows how to restore default values - Added the `ResetVariable` <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> ## Are these changes tested? Yes <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. --> Yes, SQL clients (including the CLI) can issue RESET --------- Co-authored-by: Bruce Ritchie <bruce.ritchie@veeva.com>
comphead
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 19, 2025
…#18689 (apache#18734) ## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Closes apache#18689 ## Rationale for this change <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. -->
comphead
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 19, 2025
## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Closes #. ## Rationale for this change <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> A recently merged PR X changed some output format, and a later merged PR Y is assuming the older format, causing test failure. This PR updates the format to pass the test. (Question: I don't fully understand how the merge queue work, but is there any mechanism in the merge queue to prevent this kind of issue? 🤔 ) ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. -->
comphead
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 19, 2025
…mmon (apache#18775) ## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Closes apache#18760 ## Rationale for this change <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> Cargo clippy and tests still pass ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> No <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. -->
comphead
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 19, 2025
## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Closes apache#18613 ## Rationale for this change <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> apache#18613 is almost finished, I searched the codebase and refactor all the remaining patterns in this PR. Such assertion macros have been scattered to the codebase, and I have also added some error handling doc in apache#18762, so later we can follow this pattern and continue adopting those macros. ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. --> --------- Co-authored-by: Martin Grigorov <martin-g@users.noreply.github.com>
comphead
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 19, 2025
…8660) ## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Closes apache#17134 ## Rationale for this change ASF Infra works in tricky way, to apply a protection for the new branch its needed to get: - branch created in repo - add rules to `.asf.yaml` in `main` - tricky part ASF reapply policies ONLY if `.asf.yaml` changed in PR, means that "future" branches won't be covered until the file changed and pushed. Adding a script to add automatically a block with new RC branch protection rules and updated documentation <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. --> --------- Co-authored-by: Martin Grigorov <martin-g@users.noreply.github.com>
comphead
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 19, 2025
…mode (apache#18205) ## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Part of apache#15914 ## Rationale for this change <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> - Apache Spark's `abs()` behaves differently than DataFusion. - Apache Spark's [ANSI-compliant](https://spark.apache.org/docs/latest/sql-ref-ansi-compliance.html#ansi-compliance) dialect can be toggled by SparkConf `spark.sql.ansi.enabled`. When ANSI mode is off, arithmetic overflow doesn't throw exception like DataFusion does. - DataFusion Comet can leverage it at apache/datafusion-comet#2595 ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> - This is the 1st PR to support non-ANSI mode Spark-compatible `abs` math function - Mimics Apache Spark `v4.0.1` [abs expression](https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/v4.0.1/sql/catalyst/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/catalyst/expressions/arithmetic.scala#L148) for numeric types only and non-ANSI mode, i.e. `spark.sql.ansi.enabled=false` ### Tasks breakdown | Non-ANSI mode | ANSI mode | ANSI Interval Types | | - | - | - | | this PR | hsiang-c#1 (will change base branch) | TODO | ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> - unit tests - sqllogictest: `test_files/spark/math/abs.slt` ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> Yes, the abs function can be specified in the SQL. - Arithmetic overflow will NOT be thrown on arithmetic overflow. <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. --> --------- Co-authored-by: Oleks V <comphead@users.noreply.github.com>
comphead
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 20, 2025
## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - part of #apache#18142. ## Rationale for this change This PR is for consolidating all the `sql_ops` examples (analysis, dialect, frontend, query) into a single example binary. We are agreed on the pattern and we can apply it to the remaining examples <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. --> --------- Co-authored-by: Sergey Zhukov <szhukov@aligntech.com>
comphead
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 20, 2025
## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Closes apache#18574 ## Rationale for this change <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> See the issue; tldr we couldn't do it before, and it sometimes leads me to start work on something without 'take'-ing it ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> Adds support for 'untake' command to allow contributors to manually unassign themselves. Previously they would have to ask a committer to unassign them ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> I tested this exact file in a personal repo I created. See [here](petern48/test-repo#1) ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> No, only for contributors <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. --> --------- Co-authored-by: Martin Grigorov <martin-g@users.noreply.github.com>
comphead
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 20, 2025
## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> Part of apache#12725 ## Rationale for this change <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> Prefer to avoid user_defined for consistency in function definitions. ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> Refactor signature of avg & sum away from user_defined. ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> Existing tests. ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> No. <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. -->
comphead
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 20, 2025
…ete or updated (apache#18799) ## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Closes #. ## Rationale for this change Dynamic filter pushdown in DataFusion currently lacks an API to determine when filters are "complete" (all contributing partitions have reported), this creates an ambiguity issue where it's impossible to differentiate between: 1. **Complete filter with no data**: Build side produced 0 rows, filter remains as placeholder `lit(true)`, no more updates coming 2. **Incomplete filter**: Filter is still being computed, updates are pending I think this could be especially useful when we want to make the filter updates progressively in the future. ## What changes are included in this PR? - Calls `mark_complete()` after barrier completes, regardless of whether bounds exist. - Exposes` is_complete() f`unction on the `DynamicFilterPhysicalExpr`. ## Are these changes tested? I didn't add any tests because the change is minimal , and comprehensive testing would require making the `DynamicFilterPhysicalExpr` public or running through the full optimizer pipeline. ## Are there any user-facing changes? Exposing is_complete() function.
comphead
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 20, 2025
## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - part of #apache#18142. ## Rationale for this change This PR is for consolidating all the `execution_monitoring` examples (mem_pool_exec_plan, mem_pool_tracking, tracing) into a single example binary. We are agreed on the pattern and we can apply it to the remaining examples <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. --> Co-authored-by: Sergey Zhukov <szhukov@aligntech.com>
comphead
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 20, 2025
…pache#18661) ## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Closes apache#18380. - Closes apache#9898. ## Rationale for this change <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> There was an overly aggressive condition enforce_sorting rule was not handling UnionExec correctly. This conditions assumed that Unions did not maintain order causing SortExec nodes to be removed and then eventually added at a higher level, less efficiently. ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> I removed this condition that now has changed the logic to properly take into account UnionExec's ability to maintain input ordering. ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> Yes, previously failing tests were ignored and now are unignored and passing. ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. --> No
comphead
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 20, 2025
apache#18726) ## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Closes apache#18725 ## Rationale for this change The change make the cache accessor remove API interface inline with other APIs <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> ## What changes are included in this PR? Change the remove API for non mut type <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> ## Are these changes tested? Covered in existing changes <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> ## Are there any user-facing changes? The CacheAccessor trait will be slightly different now. <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. --> --------- Signed-off-by: Arpit Bandejiya <abandeji@amazon.com> Co-authored-by: Andrew Lamb <andrew@nerdnetworks.org>
comphead
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 21, 2025
## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Closes #. ## Rationale for this change I'm frustrated every time I need to apply a multifield filter to get a list of PRs that ready to be reviewed, adding this filter to the main page as the badge along with the PR number The current PR filter: - not draft - not yet approved - CI passed <img width="128" height="44" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/2a42f516-cb09-4aad-8d42-f9826e152f09" /> <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. -->
comphead
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 21, 2025
## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Closes apache#18822. ## Rationale for this change <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> This PR fixes the bug outlined in the issue, we shouldn't use `ColumnarValue::values_to_arrays` on the batches collected in `async_scalar_function.rs`. ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> Added a test to cover this behaviour and fixed the issue in the async scalar function physical expression. ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> Yes, I added a new `user_defined_async_scalar_functions.rs` test file similar to `user_defined_scalar_functions.rs` which contains a test that covers this behaviour. ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> Yes <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. --> --------- Co-authored-by: Shiv Bhatia <sbhatia@palantir.com>
comphead
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 21, 2025
## Which issue does this PR close? More detail is in the issue. <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Closes apache#18701 ## Rationale for this change This is a pretty major correctness issue. <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> ## What changes are included in this PR? Fixes issue and reorders skip aggregate and emit early within partial aggregate execution <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> ## Are these changes tested? Yes, the unit test that's added here previously failed before this change. <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. -->
comphead
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 25, 2025
…e#18871) ## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Closes #. ## Rationale for this change Follow up on apache#18841 <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> ## What changes are included in this PR? Adding missing bool tests for bit_count <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. -->
comphead
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 25, 2025
## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - part of #apache#18142. ## Rationale for this change This PR is for consolidating all the `proto` examples (composed_extension_codec) into a single example binary. We are agreed on the pattern and we can apply it to the remaining examples <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. --> Co-authored-by: Sergey Zhukov <szhukov@aligntech.com>
comphead
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 25, 2025
…al-plan` (apache#18864) ## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Closes apache#18545 ## Rationale for this change <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> See issue ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. -->
comphead
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 25, 2025
…8836) ## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> Part of apache#12725 ## Rationale for this change <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> Prefer to avoid user_defined for consistency in function definitions. ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> Refactor signature of bit_get away from user_defined. Various other refactors. ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> Existing tests. ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. --> There's a public function I made private but I don't think it was ever intended to be public.
comphead
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 25, 2025
…-functions (apache#18768) ## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Closes apache#18758. ## Rationale for this change <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> - enforce lint rule `clippy::needless_pass_by_value` to `datafusion-functions`. ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. --> --------- Signed-off-by: StandingMan <jmtangcs@gmail.com>
comphead
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 25, 2025
…apache#18673) Previously, it was not obvious reading the plan diagram when a Repartition operator maintained sortedness by virtue of having a single input partition even if preserve_sort order was false. This commit makes the implicit sortedness preservation explicit in the plan diagram. This commit does not change anything for the case when preserve sort order is false. ## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Closes apache#18594 ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> Yes ## Are there any user-facing changes? No
comphead
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 25, 2025
## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Closes apache#18771 . ## Rationale for this change <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. -->
comphead
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 25, 2025
…deterministic expected parts (apache#18857) ## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> Part of apache#17612 ## Rationale for this change <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> `sqllogictest`s are in general easier to maintain than rust tests, however it's not able to test `EXPLAIN ANALYZE` results, because their results include changing part: (in datafusion-cli) The `elapsed_compute` measurement changes from run to run. ``` > EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT * FROM generate_series(100); +-------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | plan_type | plan | +-------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Plan with Metrics | LazyMemoryExec: partitions=1, batch_generators=[generate_series: start=0, end=100, batch_size=8192], metrics=[output_rows=101, elapsed_compute=74.042µs, output_bytes=64.0 KB, output_batches=1] | | | | +-------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ 1 row(s) fetched. Elapsed 0.006 seconds. ``` We can add a special marker to `sqllogictest` to skip those non-deterministic parts. ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> - Changed `sqllogictest` validator to recognize `<slt:ignore>` marker - doc - slt test ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. --> --------- Co-authored-by: Martin Grigorov <martin-g@users.noreply.github.com>
comphead
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 25, 2025
## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - part of #apache#18142. ## Rationale for this change This PR is for consolidating all the `dataframe` examples (dataframe, default_column_values, deserialize_to_struct) into a single example binary. We are agreed on the pattern and we can apply it to the remaining examples <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. --> --------- Co-authored-by: Sergey Zhukov <szhukov@aligntech.com>
comphead
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 25, 2025
…e#18877) ## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> N/A ## Rationale for this change <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> Whilst reviewing some recent PRs (apache#18839 & apache#18768) I noticed we have quite a few inner implementation functions that are public for some reason, which give the false impression these are meant to be public APIs (and thus any changes to their signature needs to be restricted). Went through and limited the functions to private where possible to try reduce our public API footprint. ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> Change inner functions in functions & nested-functions crates to be private, away from public. - There are still some that are left public such as some regex ones, because they are used directly in benches ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> Compiler itself. ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> Yes, quite a few functions are now private, but I don't think they were meant to be public in the first place. <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. -->
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.
Updates the requirements on cranelift to permit the latest version.
Commits
Dependabot will resolve any conflicts with this PR as long as you don't alter it yourself. You can also trigger a rebase manually by commenting
@dependabot rebase.Dependabot commands and options
You can trigger Dependabot actions by commenting on this PR:
@dependabot rebasewill rebase this PR@dependabot recreatewill recreate this PR, overwriting any edits that have been made to it@dependabot mergewill merge this PR after your CI passes on it@dependabot squash and mergewill squash and merge this PR after your CI passes on it@dependabot cancel mergewill cancel a previously requested merge and block automerging@dependabot reopenwill reopen this PR if it is closed@dependabot closewill close this PR and stop Dependabot recreating it. You can achieve the same result by closing it manually@dependabot ignore this major versionwill close this PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for this major version (unless you reopen the PR or upgrade to it yourself)@dependabot ignore this minor versionwill close this PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for this minor version (unless you reopen the PR or upgrade to it yourself)@dependabot ignore this dependencywill close this PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for this dependency (unless you reopen the PR or upgrade to it yourself)