Closed kevinzwang closed 2 weeks ago
Comparing kevin/split-logical-physical-plans
(6276e8f) with main
(61b6842)
✅ 17
untouched benchmarks
Attention: Patch coverage is 65.60000%
with 43 lines
in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
Project coverage is 78.01%. Comparing base (
61b6842
) to head (6276e8f
). Report is 2 commits behind head on main.
I put the physical plan into the existing daft-physical-plan crate, which currently contains the local physical plan as well. However if there is an argument for keeping them separate I can move the local plan into a daft-local-plan crate.
I think the physical plan is actually going to become a distributed-only physical plan soon. It might make sense to have it in daft-distributed-plan
or something @colin-ho might have an opinion
talked with Colin about it, I'll keep it split up then and have a daft-local-plan
and daft-physical-plan
for now, with the future plan of having a daft-distributed-plan
and eliminating the daft-physical-plan
altogether.
But this PR will take the daft-physical-plan
namespace and move the current code to daft-local-plan
This is the first in a three part series to modify our dependency graph to allow for subqueries:
I put the physical plan into the existing
daft-physical-plan
crate, and moved the local physical plan into adaft-local-plan
crate.