test: add more test cases to demonstrate handling of heterogeneous constants #14923
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
Closing. This was about my learning, and demonstrating for a convo on another PR. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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?
Based upon a discussion we were having in another PR, about how the output ordering is handled from heterogeneous constants. In summary, it's not about the partitioning of the input, instead its about whatever in the sort input considers constant.
Additionally, the
EquivalenceProperties::with_reorderalways treats all constants (regardless of heterogeneous or uniform) as to be removed from the sort order. This means that if a physical plan node uses this method to construct the ordering, (as does the sort exec), it will remove both types of constants. I added a test case to make this explicit that this is desired behavior.Rationale for this change
Since there was some discussion on the other PR, perhaps we should add more test cases to make the desired behavior explicit?
What changes are included in this PR?
Added test cases.
Are these changes tested?
yes
Are there any user-facing changes?
no