{{ message }}
Add IN list sqllogictest test (and integer type coverage)#23305
Merged
Conversation
geoffreyclaude
approved these changes
Jul 3, 2026
geoffreyclaude
left a comment
geoffreyclaude
left a comment
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Very clear and hits quite a few edge cases. Could you just extend the tests to also include longer in lists (eg, 12 elements)?
This was referenced Jul 3, 2026
alamb
force-pushed
the
codex/in-list-slt-integers
branch
from
71a568f to
b801c50
Compare
Contributor
Author
Contributor
Author
|
I also added a note to point out that the IN list is only executed for larger lists (over 4) |
Contributor
We'll have to review that optimization rule once the full IN LIST optims land! |
Contributor
Author
xudong963
approved these changes
Jul 5, 2026
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
3 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Which issue does this PR close?
Rationale for this change
We (mostly @geoffreyclaude ) are in the process of optimizing IN lists with specialized implementations for various different data types.
@kosiew suggested in #23299 (comment) that we add SQL level coverage for the IN list optimizations to both cover the dispatch logic as well as ensure everything works end to end.
What changes are included in this PR?
in_list.sltfile to specifically target the IN listsnote I think we should have significiantly more SLT coverage (list on #23307) but to keep the review small / understandable I plan to do it with several PRs
Are these changes tested?
Only tests
Are there any user-facing changes?
No