Skip to content

Remove ordinal grouping path in aggregations #131307

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 11 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

dnhatn
Copy link
Member

@dnhatn dnhatn commented Jul 15, 2025

With the ordinal grouping operator removed in #131133, this PR removes the corresponding code path in the grouping aggregator function, as it is no longer needed.

Relates #131133

@dnhatn dnhatn force-pushed the remove-ordinal-grouping branch from 76b06b8 to 45e2587 Compare July 15, 2025 18:35
@dnhatn dnhatn requested review from nik9000 and ivancea July 15, 2025 19:34
@dnhatn dnhatn marked this pull request as ready for review July 15, 2025 19:35
@elasticsearchmachine elasticsearchmachine added the Team:Analytics Meta label for analytical engine team (ESQL/Aggs/Geo) label Jul 15, 2025
@elasticsearchmachine
Copy link
Collaborator

Pinging @elastic/es-analytical-engine (Team:Analytics)

Copy link
Contributor

@ivancea ivancea left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM! Just a thought in a comment; probably not interesting anyway

@@ -121,7 +121,7 @@
* It is also possible to declare any number of arbitrary arguments that must be provided via generated Supplier.
* </li>
* <li>
* {@code combine, combineStates, combineIntermediate, evaluateFinal} methods (see below) could be generated automatically
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I wonder if it would be worth it keeping the combineStates(), in case we want to reuse it later. For some node-level initial agg reduction. I think we talked about it at some point.
Not sure if it's really worth it. Commenting mostly because we're throwing quite some code.
However, I see there are no tests being removed though, so I suppose this wasn't tested either

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
:Analytics/ES|QL AKA ESQL >non-issue Team:Analytics Meta label for analytical engine team (ESQL/Aggs/Geo) v9.2.0
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants