-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.9k
feat: support LargeList in cardinality
#8726
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
feat: support LargeList in cardinality
#8726
Conversation
| .collect::<Result<UInt64Array>>()?; | ||
|
|
||
| let result = match &args[0].data_type() { | ||
| DataType::List(_) => { |
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.
Although this implementation is small, I think having a closure for generic array is still a good practice.
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 agree it would be better to avoid the duplication if possible
jayzhan211
left a comment
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.
LGTM
| let list_array = as_large_list_array(&args[0])?; | ||
| generic_list_cardinality::<i64>(list_array) | ||
| } | ||
| _ => { |
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.
| _ => { | |
| other => { | |
| exec_err!( | |
| "cardinality does not support type '{:?}'", | |
| other | |
| ) | |
| } |
alamb
left a comment
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.
comphead
left a comment
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.
lgtm thanks @Weijun-H
Which issue does this PR close?
Parts #8185
Rationale for this change
What changes are included in this PR?
Are these changes tested?
Are there any user-facing changes?