You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Is your feature request related to a problem or challenge?
Currently SortExec::sort_batch_stream uses lexsort_to_indices to sort the produced RecordBatch. For multi-column sorts this makes use of LexicographicalComparator. The branching and dynamic dispatch involved in this comparator is relatively expensive. Converting to the row format first, and comparing these rows has been found to offer significant performance advantages in similar applications - #3386.
Describe the solution you'd like
SortExec should:
If single sort column, use sort_to_indices to sort the input batches
If multiple columns, convert to the row format and sort using this representation
If performing a subsequent merge, preserve the row encoding to avoid redundant work
Describe alternatives you've considered
No response
Additional context
This is likely not a good first issue, and I do not recommend people pick it up, creating primarily for tracking purposes. I will likely pick it up at some point in the near-ish future.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Is your feature request related to a problem or challenge?
Currently
SortExec::sort_batch_stream
useslexsort_to_indices
to sort the producedRecordBatch
. For multi-column sorts this makes use ofLexicographicalComparator
. The branching and dynamic dispatch involved in this comparator is relatively expensive. Converting to the row format first, and comparing these rows has been found to offer significant performance advantages in similar applications - #3386.Describe the solution you'd like
SortExec should:
sort_to_indices
to sort the input batchesDescribe alternatives you've considered
No response
Additional context
This is likely not a good first issue, and I do not recommend people pick it up, creating primarily for tracking purposes. I will likely pick it up at some point in the near-ish future.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: