Optimize Parquet row-filter struct schema pruning#22960
Open
shehab-ali wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Rationale for this change
build_filter_schema andprune_struct_type` repeatedly scanned the same struct-field access paths while constructing Parquet row-filter projection schemas. That caused avoidable iterator work and temporary allocations when filters referenced multiple struct fields, especially across nested struct paths.This change groups struct field access paths once per schema level, so schema pruning can reuse lookups instead of repeatedly filtering the full access-path list.
What changes are included in this PR?
Benchmark Results
These results compare each benchmark’s with_pushdown case against its matching no_pushdown case in the current code.
Throughput comparison
Are these changes tested?
Are there any user-facing changes?
No