berkaysynnada commented on code in PR #15438:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/15438#discussion_r2025001167
##########
datafusion/physical-expr/src/equivalence/projection.rs:
##########
@@ -66,9 +66,9 @@ impl ProjectionMapping {
let idx = col.index();
let matching_input_field = input_schema.field(idx);
if col.name() != matching_input_field.name() {
- return internal_err!("Input field name {} does
not match with the projection expression {}",
- matching_input_field.name(),col.name())
- }
+ let fixed_col = Column::new(col.name(), idx);
+ return
Ok(Transformed::yes(Arc::new(fixed_col)))
+ }
Review Comment:
I think we should revert this change. This check was helpful in catching
many errors, especially while developing projection-related code (e.g.
projection pushdown). Sorry for my delayed response, but @LiaCastaneda, could
you please address the root cause of the issue and revert this change?
As you mentioned, the problem likely stems from inconsistent naming
conventions between columns and fields. I recall encountering similar issues
with aggregation functions in the past, and we resolved them by unifying the
naming. I believe the correct fix shouldn’t require too much effort.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscr...@datafusion.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscr...@datafusion.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: github-h...@datafusion.apache.org
