You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
fix null handling for nanvl & implement fast path (#20205)
## Which issue does this PR close?
<!--
We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and
enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases.
You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example
`Closes#123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123.
-->
- Part of apache/datafusion-comet#2986
## Rationale for this change
`nanvl` currently evaluates scalar inputs via
`make_scalar_function(nanvl, vec![])`, which converts scalar values into
size‑1 arrays before execution and then converts back. This adds
unnecessary overhead for constant folding / scalar
evaluation
Also fix bug where `null` was being returned if `y` was null, even if
`x` was not `nan`
- We treat nulls as normal values; we return `x` if and only if `x` is
not `nan`, otherwise return `y`
<!--
Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly
in the issue then this section is not needed.
Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand
your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes.
-->
## What changes are included in this PR?
- Add match-based scalar fast path for `ColumnarValue::Scalar +
ColumnarValue::Scalar`
- Add Criterion benchmarks:
- `nanvl/scalar_f64`
- `nanvl/scalar_f32`
Benchmark | Before | After | Speedup
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
nanvl/scalar_f64 | ~240.1 ns | 50.104 ns ~4.79x
nanvl/scalar_f32 |~237.1 ns | 49.284 ns ~4.81x
<!--
There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it
is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this
PR.
-->
## Are these changes tested?
Yes
<!--
We typically require tests for all PRs in order to:
1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes
2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code
If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example,
are they covered by existing tests)?
-->
## Are there any user-facing changes?
No
<!--
If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be
updated before approving the PR.
-->
<!--
If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api
change` label.
-->
0 commit comments