doc: Document caveats of swap_inputs() interface in join executors
#17373
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
jonathanc-n
approved these changes
Sep 2, 2025
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This lgtm, small nit (just want to keep everything easy to read 😄 ). Thanks @2010YOUY01!
Co-authored-by: Jonathan Chen <[email protected]>
alamb
approved these changes
Sep 4, 2025
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you @2010YOUY01 and @jonathanc-n -- this is a nice change for sure
destrex271
pushed a commit
to destrex271/datafusion
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 5, 2025
…pache#17373) * doc caveats of `swap_inputs()` interface in join executors * fix ci * Update datafusion/physical-plan/src/joins/hash_join/exec.rs Co-authored-by: Jonathan Chen <[email protected]> --------- Co-authored-by: Jonathan Chen <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Which issue does this PR close?
related to #17358
Rationale for this change
It's not clear to me how to properly handle existing partitioning when using
swap_inputs()interface, so I checked the related code and add some comments to explain the pre-condition when using theswap_inputs()interface in join operators.What changes are included in this PR?
Are these changes tested?
Are there any user-facing changes?