Enhance Asynchronous Performance of SHJ Implementation #5864
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
|
This PR simplifies children stream handling for SymmetricHashJoin. Is is LGTM!. |
alamb
approved these changes
Apr 4, 2023
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @metesynnada and @mustafasrepo -- given @mustafasrepo has reviewed this PR and the changes are localized to symmetric hash join I am going to merge it.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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?
Closes #5714.
Rationale for this change
To optimize the asynchronous performance of the
SymmetricHashJoinoperator, we propose merging the two child streams usingfutures::select. This will enable simultaneous polling of both streams and execute the branch corresponding to the future that completes first.What changes are included in this PR?
poll_next()Are these changes tested?
Yes
Are there any user-facing changes?
No