-
Couldn't load subscription status.
- Fork 1.7k
feat: allow pushdown of dynamic filters having partition cols #18172
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
feat: allow pushdown of dynamic filters having partition cols #18172
Conversation
2e64a1e to
1a02eae
Compare
115d3c1 to
2d8fb9c
Compare
e58d9ec to
2c1ee6e
Compare
|
@feniljain mind if I push 7818a42c7 to your branch / this PR? |
|
Sure thing! No worries, thanks for the patch :) |
8290691 to
05284cf
Compare
Added documentation explaining the introduction of the TableSchema struct and the breaking change to FileSource::with_schema() method signature (changed from SchemaRef to TableSchema). Includes: - Overview of TableSchema purpose and structure - Who is affected by the change - Migration guide for custom FileSource implementations - Code examples showing how to update implementations - Examples of using TableSchema directly 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-Authored-By: Claude <[email protected]>
22079c6 to
503a5d8
Compare
|
@feniljain thanks for your patience. I had to resolve some conflicts but I think this is looking good now. I'll give it one last review tomorrow and then we can probably merge it. |
| _execution plan_ of the query. With this release, `DESCRIBE query` now outputs | ||
| the computed _schema_ of the query, consistent with the behavior of `DESCRIBE table_name`. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Introduction of `TableSchema` and changes to `FileSource::with_schema()` method |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Note that TableSchema was not added in this PR but this PR does use it in a way that introduces a notable breaking change, so I think it's an appropriate time to add it to the upgrade guide.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This makes sense to me. Thanks @feniljain
Which issue does this PR close?
Rationale for this change
Included in the issue
Are these changes tested?
While I have tested this on local with a local TPCDS-like dataset, I would appreciate if someone provides me a good way to add tests for the same 😅