ensure MemTable has at least one partition #16754
Merged
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
Signed-off-by: Ruihang Xia <[email protected]>
github-actions
bot
added
documentation
Signed-off-by: Ruihang Xia <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Yongting You <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Ruihang Xia <[email protected]>
Member
Author
|
Thanks for your review ❤️ |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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?
Rationale for this change
When creating a
MemTablewith no partition (vec![]), we will get an error later like thisdoes not satisfy distribution requirements: SinglePartition. Child-0 output partitioning: UnknownPartitioning(0)\"))". Because an execution plan should have at least one partition.What changes are included in this PR?
This API is kinda error-prone, so this patch adds a check to make sure
MemTablehas at least one partition. It also fixes several existing examples that usevec![]instead ofvec![vec![]]Are these changes tested?
Are there any user-facing changes?