-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4k
GH-18818: [R] Create a field ref to a field in a struct #19706
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
9 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
34952fa
Proof of concept building a nested field ref
nealrichardson b2499e1
Basic test of using in dplyr
nealrichardson b582cde
More tests and fixes
nealrichardson 080cad0
Clean up
nealrichardson 9afafd6
Clean up comments and update NAMESPACE
nealrichardson bbb317c
Fix test and add error handling test
nealrichardson 2029151
Use struct_field kernel on non-field-refs
nealrichardson ded54d6
Add error expectation
nealrichardson f5217fc
Create struct_field with FieldRef instead of integer; add TODO links
nealrichardson 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
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
Oops, something went wrong.
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
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
Oops, something went wrong.
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
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.
This might not be used in practice (in a
mutatecall where you select the field, you also directly specify the resulting column name), but otherwise it might also make sense to keep the innermost field name?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 function is only used to prune columns in the dataset scanner, and IIRC that interface accepts column names, not FieldRefs, so I need the names of the top-level columns. But if I'm mistaken and we can use FieldRefs there now, we can refactor 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.
You can also specify field refs (well, generic expressions), but then you also need to pass the resulting name for the schema. See the second Project signature at
arrow/cpp/src/arrow/dataset/scanner.h
Lines 463 to 484 in 4e439f6
which gets translated to ScanOptions.projection. It seems that is also what the R bindings actually do inside
ExecNode_Scan(it will convert the materialized_field_names back to FieldRefs). Now, the scanner itself will also just use the top-level name of a nested field ref to do pruning of what it needs to read, so right now preserving the nested field ref is not useful. But ideally in the future we would optimize that for formats that can do that (like parquet, cfr #33167)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.
Thanks for the pointers. I've deferred cleaning this up to #33760 since I see a few places where it could be more involved than just deleting code.