fix: DataFusion benchmark panicked: failed to cast '2013-07-01' to UInt16#21498
fix: DataFusion benchmark panicked: failed to cast '2013-07-01' to UInt16#21498alamb merged 1 commit intoapache:mainfrom
Conversation
|
A problem was exposed during the benchmark tests in #21236, as follows: I've attempted to make an adjustment, though I'm not entirely sure if it's correct. If you have a moment, could you please take a look? Thanks! @xudong963 @neilconway |
|
@alamb I'm not sure if the |
|
Thank you @xiedeyantu We can test this locally by running cargo bench --profile=dev --bench sql_planner -- physical_plan_clickbench_q37Which locally for me fails like this: |
|
run benchmark sql_planner |
|
I also verified the queyr passes locally for me |
Thank you for performing the local verification. |
|
🤖 Criterion benchmark running (GKE) | trigger CPU Details (lscpu)Comparing benchmark (62eb3b8) to e1ad871 (merge-base) diff File an issue against this benchmark runner |
|
Benchmark for this request failed. Last 20 lines of output: Click to expandFile an issue against this benchmark runner |
|
(I think the remote benchmark fails when run on main -- so I will merge this one in) |
…nt16 (apache#21498) ## 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 apache#123` indicates that this PR will close issue apache#123. --> - Closes apache#21497. ## Rationale for this change <!-- 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? <!-- 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? <!-- 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? <!-- 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. -->
Which issue does this PR close?
Rationale for this change
What changes are included in this PR?
Are these changes tested?
Are there any user-facing changes?