fix(bench): avoid OOM in array_replace bench#22120
Merged
alamb merged 1 commit intoMay 12, 2026
Merged
Conversation
alamb
approved these changes
May 12, 2026
Contributor
|
Thanks @kumarUjjawal |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Which issue does this PR close?
Rationale for this change
The
array_replacebenchmark allocated ~90GB of memory before running (3 × 100MExprliterals), causing OOM on normal machines.What changes are included in this PR?
array_leninarray_expressionbench from100_000_000to100_000.assert_eq!(and its unusedexpected_array) that compared theScalarFunctionExprreturned byarray_replace_allagainst the unmodified input — the twoExprtrees are never equal. The OOM previously hid the failing assertion.Are these changes tested?
Yes,
cargo bench -p datafusion-functions-nested --bench array_expressionpasses locallyAre there any user-facing changes?
No