Support planning logical range repartitioning #22786

Activity

1. saadtajwar commented on Jun 23, 2026

   

   saadtajwar

   on Jun 23, 2026

   Contributor

   More actions

   Hey @gene-bordegaray ! If this is still open I'm happy to take it and start digging around!

   👍React with 👍1Reacted by Gene Bordegaray
2. saadtajwar commented on Jun 23, 2026

   

   saadtajwar

   on Jun 23, 2026

   Contributor

   More actions

   take
3. github-actions

   assigned

   saadtajwar

   on Jun 23, 2026
4. saadtajwar commented on Jun 23, 2026

   

   saadtajwar

   on Jun 23, 2026

   Contributor

   More actions

   @gene-bordegaray Hmm, I definitely could be mistaken here but it looks like in the below that logical range repartitioning is now supported during physical planning:

       async fn map_logical_node_to_physical(...) {
   ....
                       LogicalPartitioning::Range(range) => {
                           let sort_exprs = create_physical_sort_exprs(
                               range.ordering(),
                               input_dfschema,
                               execution_props,
                           )?;
                           let ordering = LexOrdering::new(sort_exprs).ok_or_else(|| {
                               internal_datafusion_err!(
                                   "Range repartitioning requires non-empty ordering"
                               )
                           })?;
                           Partitioning::Range(RangePartitioning::try_new(
                               ordering,
                               range.split_points().to_vec(),
                           )?)
                       }
   ...
   }
   

   With the test physical_planner::tests::logical_range_repartition_plans_output_partitioning passing as well! Is the above what this issue was encompassing, or is there something else that I might be missing here? Thanks again for the help! 😁
5. gene-bordegaray commented on Jun 23, 2026

   

   gene-bordegaray

   on Jun 23, 2026

   ContributorAuthor

   More actions

   yes forgot to close this, but the actual physical implementation for repartitioning for Range is not implemented if you would like to look at that @saadtajwar 👍
6. gene-bordegaray

   closed this as completedon Jun 23, 2026
7. gene-bordegaray commented on Jun 23, 2026

   

   gene-bordegaray

   on Jun 23, 2026

   ContributorAuthor

   More actions

   completed in #22777
8. saadtajwar commented on Jun 23, 2026

   

   saadtajwar

   on Jun 23, 2026

   Contributor

   More actions

   yes forgot to close this, but the actual physical implementation for repartitioning for Range is not implemented if you would like to look at that @saadtajwar 👍

   Sounds good, yeah for sure! I'll make an issue for that if there isn't one already