berkaysynnada commented on code in PR #17337:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/17337#discussion_r2327167687
##########
datafusion/expr/src/logical_plan/plan.rs:
##########
@@ -2525,6 +2525,8 @@ pub struct TableScan {
pub filters: Vec<Expr>,
/// Optional number of rows to read
pub fetch: Option<usize>,
+ /// Optional preferred ordering for the scan
+ pub preferred_ordering: Option<Vec<SortExpr>>,
Review Comment:
> @berkaysynnada do you think this is the right information to pass down? Or
is there a world where it makes sense to pass down some sort of "equivalence"
information?
>
> cc @alamb
When we are registering the sources, we can provide multiple orderings if
the table supports them. However, the requirements are singular, and I don't
think there would be any meaning in ordering the table for both `col_a` and
`col_b` simultaneously. So, I've always thought that requirements need only one
ordering, but specs should be capable of having multiple orderings. So there
isn't any obvious advantage of using equivalences here, IMO
--
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
