GH-41258: [C#][Integration] Fix comparison of sliced validity buffers with non-zero offsets#41259
Merged
paleolimbot merged 2 commits intoapache:mainfrom Apr 17, 2024
Merged
Conversation
|
|
CurtHagenlocher
approved these changes
Apr 17, 2024
Contributor
CurtHagenlocher
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good, thanks! I'm not in a position to run the checkin script until evening, so feel free to commit before then.
This was referenced Apr 17, 2024
|
After merging your PR, Conbench analyzed the 5 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on merge-commit 73386cb. There were no benchmark performance regressions. 🎉 The full Conbench report has more details. It also includes information about 7 possible false positives for unstable benchmarks that are known to sometimes produce them. |
CurtHagenlocher
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 19, 2024
…es of the bitmap comparison (#41264) ### Rationale for this change The optimization for validity buffers was still failing after #41259 (sorry!). ### What changes are included in this PR? There were still two problems: - The offset of the actual array was not considered in the "optimized" branch - When this offset *was* considered, it became clear that zero-length arrays were not going to work in that branch ### Are these changes tested? I added the integration workflow to also run for C# additions. This might be a heavy CI job and I'm not sure if you want to keep it there (but running it is useful for this PR to ensure I actually fix things). For future me (or maybe future others), the integration tests are pretty easy to check: ``` dotnet build archery integration --run-c-data --with-csharp=true ``` ### Are there any user-facing changes? No. * GitHub Issue: #41263 Authored-by: Dewey Dunnington <dewey@fishandwhistle.net> Signed-off-by: Curt Hagenlocher <curt@hagenlocher.org>
vibhatha
pushed a commit
to vibhatha/arrow
that referenced
this pull request
May 25, 2024
…uffers with non-zero offsets (apache#41259) ### Rationale for this change After apache#41230 , the integration tests are failing on main . ### What changes are included in this PR? The bit-by-bit comparison branch in the validity bitmap comparison is missing an offset on one side of the comparison. This PR adds that offset back in. ### Are these changes tested? Via the integration test CI job. ### Are there any user-facing changes? No * GitHub Issue: apache#41258 Authored-by: Dewey Dunnington <dewey@fishandwhistle.net> Signed-off-by: Dewey Dunnington <dewey@fishandwhistle.net>
vibhatha
pushed a commit
to vibhatha/arrow
that referenced
this pull request
May 25, 2024
…branches of the bitmap comparison (apache#41264) ### Rationale for this change The optimization for validity buffers was still failing after apache#41259 (sorry!). ### What changes are included in this PR? There were still two problems: - The offset of the actual array was not considered in the "optimized" branch - When this offset *was* considered, it became clear that zero-length arrays were not going to work in that branch ### Are these changes tested? I added the integration workflow to also run for C# additions. This might be a heavy CI job and I'm not sure if you want to keep it there (but running it is useful for this PR to ensure I actually fix things). For future me (or maybe future others), the integration tests are pretty easy to check: ``` dotnet build archery integration --run-c-data --with-csharp=true ``` ### Are there any user-facing changes? No. * GitHub Issue: apache#41263 Authored-by: Dewey Dunnington <dewey@fishandwhistle.net> Signed-off-by: Curt Hagenlocher <curt@hagenlocher.org>
kou
pushed a commit
to apache/arrow-dotnet
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 30, 2025
…es of the bitmap comparison (#41264) ### Rationale for this change The optimization for validity buffers was still failing after apache/arrow#41259 (sorry!). ### What changes are included in this PR? There were still two problems: - The offset of the actual array was not considered in the "optimized" branch - When this offset *was* considered, it became clear that zero-length arrays were not going to work in that branch ### Are these changes tested? I added the integration workflow to also run for C# additions. This might be a heavy CI job and I'm not sure if you want to keep it there (but running it is useful for this PR to ensure I actually fix things). For future me (or maybe future others), the integration tests are pretty easy to check: ``` dotnet build archery integration --run-c-data --with-csharp=true ``` ### Are there any user-facing changes? No. * GitHub Issue: #41263 Authored-by: Dewey Dunnington <dewey@fishandwhistle.net> Signed-off-by: Curt Hagenlocher <curt@hagenlocher.org>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Rationale for this change
After #41230 , the integration tests are failing on main .
What changes are included in this PR?
The bit-by-bit comparison branch in the validity bitmap comparison is missing an offset on one side of the comparison. This PR adds that offset back in.
Are these changes tested?
Via the integration test CI job.
Are there any user-facing changes?
No