adriangb commented on code in PR #20065: URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/20065#discussion_r2743049136
########## datafusion/sqllogictest/test_files/unnest.slt: ########## @@ -673,8 +673,8 @@ logical_plan physical_plan 01)ProjectionExec: expr=[__unnest_placeholder(UNNEST(recursive_unnest_table.column3)[c1],depth=2)@0 as UNNEST(UNNEST(UNNEST(recursive_unnest_table.column3)[c1])), column3@1 as column3] 02)--UnnestExec -03)----ProjectionExec: expr=[get_field(__unnest_placeholder(recursive_unnest_table.column3,depth=1)@0, c1) as __unnest_placeholder(UNNEST(recursive_unnest_table.column3)[c1]), column3@1 as column3] -04)------RepartitionExec: partitioning=RoundRobinBatch(4), input_partitions=1 +03)----RepartitionExec: partitioning=RoundRobinBatch(4), input_partitions=1 +04)------ProjectionExec: expr=[get_field(__unnest_placeholder(recursive_unnest_table.column3,depth=1)@0, c1) as __unnest_placeholder(UNNEST(recursive_unnest_table.column3)[c1]), column3@1 as column3] Review Comment: Because the projection is a `get_field` it can be pushed under the RepartitionExec. Because this is a `MemorySourceConfig` data source (which doesn't accept projections, it's pointless to do so) it doesn't get pushed into the scan. But this is still correct / a win: we reduce the size of the data very cheaply by pulling out the field we care above and discarding the rest before we slice up the data in the RepartitionExec. -- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
