voonhous commented on code in PR #19863:
URL: https://github.com/apache/hudi/pull/19863#discussion_r3956128748


##########
hudi-trino/src/main/java/io/trino/plugin/hudi/HudiSplitManager.java:
##########
@@ -82,6 +83,12 @@ public ConnectorSplitSource getSplits(
             Constraint constraint)
     {
         HudiTableHandle hudiTableHandle = (HudiTableHandle) tableHandle;
+        // The planner turns a none() domain into an empty ValuesNode before 
applyFilter, so a none() predicate
+        // should never reach here; guard anyway, as computePartitionKeyFilter 
below throws on a none() domain.

Review Comment:
   Valid, the comment only justifies the partition arm. Proposed wording:
   
   ```diff
            HudiTableHandle hudiTableHandle = (HudiTableHandle) tableHandle;
            // The planner turns a none() domain into an empty ValuesNode 
before applyFilter, so a none() predicate
   -        // should never reach here; guard anyway, as 
computePartitionKeyFilter below throws on a none() domain.
   +        // should never reach here. Guard anyway; the two arms stop 
different things. A none() partition predicate
   +        // would reach computePartitionKeyFilter below, whose checkArgument 
rejects it. A none() regular predicate
   +        // throws nothing: it empties 
TupleDomainUtils.getReferencedColumns, so every index strategy's canApply
   +        // declines and nothing is pruned.
            if (hudiTableHandle.getPartitionPredicates().isNone() || 
hudiTableHandle.getRegularPredicates().isNone()) {
   ```
   
   Worth its own follow-up, or fold into the next change that touches this 
file? The guard is unreachable either way, so I would rather not spend a 
comment-only commit on it now. Happy to open one if you would rather it not 
wait.



-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]

Reply via email to