Skip to content

Conversation

@niebayes
Copy link
Contributor

Which issue does this PR close?

No

Rationale for this change

I think the original comment is misleading as we actually want to express if a parent filter was pushed down to any child successfully.

What changes are included in this PR?

Updated the comment about the filters in the FilterPushdownPropagation struct.

Are these changes tested?

No need to test as it only modifies comments.

Are there any user-facing changes?

Yes, but only touches the comment.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the physical-plan Changes to the physical-plan crate label Jan 28, 2026
Copy link
Contributor

@masonh22 masonh22 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good, I just have one small comment

#[derive(Debug, Clone)]
pub struct FilterPushdownPropagation<T> {
/// What filters were pushed into the parent node.
/// Which parent filters were pushed down into this node's children.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not super familiar with the physical optimizer filter pushdown rule, but push_down_filters() in physical-optimizer/src/filter_pushdown.rs specifically distinguishes between "parent" filters and "self" filters, which are both contained in FilterPushdownPropagation::filters.

So I think the comment should be "Which filters were pushed down..." instead of "Which parent filters were pushed down..."

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

physical-plan Changes to the physical-plan crate

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants