Repository navigation
Conversation
Co-authored-by: Isaac <no-reply@databricks.com>
This branch has not been deployed
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
Make
EvictionIteratorremove an evictable row (and incrementnumRowsRemovedSoFar) innext()instead ofhasNext.hasNextstill finds and buffers the next evictable row, but no longer mutates the state store. Docs onEvictionIteratorandStreamingAggregationStateManager.evictionIteratorare updated, and the now-obsolete note inStatefulStreamlineAggregateExecis removed.Why are the changes needed?
hasNextshould not have side effects. With removal inhasNext, a caller that probes without consuming deletes a row it never received: in append mode that row is dropped from state without being emitted yet is still counted innumOutputRows, and update-mode incremental cleanup has to order its checks carefully to avoid removing an extra row per input.Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No.
How was this patch tested?
New test in
StreamingAggregationStateManagerSuitechecking that repeatedhasNextdoes not remove the row or update the metric, andnext()does. ExistingStreamingAggregationStateManagerSuiteandStreamingAggregationSuitepass.Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
Generated-by: Claude Opus 5.5
This pull request and its description were written by Isaac.