andishgar commented on code in PR #46229:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/46229#discussion_r2208173495
##########
cpp/src/arrow/array/array_binary.cc:
##########
@@ -105,6 +111,392 @@
BinaryViewArray::BinaryViewArray(std::shared_ptr<DataType> type, int64_t length,
ArrayData::Make(std::move(type), length, std::move(buffers), null_count,
offset));
}
+namespace {
+
+// TODO Should We move this to bitmap_ops.h and Remove from
compute/kernels/util.s
+Result<std::shared_ptr<Buffer>> GetOrCopyNullBitmapBuffer(const ArrayData&
in_array,
+ MemoryPool* pool) {
+ if (in_array.buffers[0]->data() == nullptr) {
+ return nullptr;
+ } else if (in_array.offset == 0) {
+ return in_array.buffers[0];
+ } else if (in_array.offset % 8 == 0) {
+ return SliceBuffer(in_array.buffers[0], /*offset=*/in_array.offset / 8);
+ } else {
+ // If a non-zero offset, we need to shift the bitmap
+ return internal::CopyBitmap(pool, in_array.buffers[0]->data(),
in_array.offset,
+ in_array.length);
+ }
+}
+
+struct Interval {
+ int64_t start;
+ int64_t end;
+ int32_t offset = -1;
Review Comment:
If I don't want to include the offset inside the interval, I would need to
define a std::unordered_map. The goal of including the offset is to avoid using
such a hash table.
So, what’s your opinion? Should we rely on a hash table, or use the
offset?(Note: Using a hash table leads to more complex logic in
`GetRelativeOffset`, as I would need to use both a `set` and an `unordered_map`
together to compute the new offset.).
--
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: github-unsubscr...@arrow.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
