-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4k
GH-32916: [C++] [Python] User-defined tabular functions #14682
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
18 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
0cb4b5a
ARROW-17676: [C++] [Python] User-defined tabular functions
rtpsw d0cc3f1
lint
rtpsw 2b2986c
add docs
rtpsw 3e8b0ad
lint
rtpsw 8f38e95
fix tabular next-function
rtpsw 345e961
requested changes
rtpsw 2fcc553
more requested fixes
rtpsw 3f35ccd
lint
rtpsw 3c30eee
lint
rtpsw feaa957
requested changes
rtpsw 37451c7
RecordBatchReader API
rtpsw d691c86
Merge branch 'master' into ARROW-17676
rtpsw d0c8f5f
requested fixes
rtpsw 4236e37
fix copy elision
rtpsw 8a4d820
revert to scalar-UDF naming
rtpsw fb7049f
Merge branch 'master' into ARROW-17676
rtpsw 5076b97
fix merge
rtpsw dc61c55
add todo
rtpsw File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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.
appreciate your effort to make this more generic, but with the other UDFs, we have a complex strucutre for the callbacks. In that case this generalization won't be that useful as far as I feel. For the moment, shall we keep them separate? There would be a sort of
DRYviolated here, but once we generalized this API after our experimental version, we should be able to streamline these.cc @westonpace
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.
You mean revert to the original
register_scalar_udfcode, then duplicate it and adapt toregister_tabular_udf? The disadvantage of code repetition is clear, but what is the advantage? The remaining PR would still need to resolve the conflict, since you say the callback structure changed in that PR, only this time the conflict would not be caught by source control tools, because theregister_scalar_udfcode would not have changed.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.
I think maybe I didn't clearly state it in the description, do we need this interface
RegisterUdf? Is it a must? I was referring to this.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.
The proposed common design for scalar and tabular function registration requires a parameter to distinguish between the two. I considered 3 options to do so:
is_tabular. This seemed the least elegant to me, and is definitely the least extensible.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.
My preference would be to keep this and, if we have something better when we add aggregate udfs, we can switch to that then. That being said, I'm not 100% certain I follow the arguments here.