Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[FEA] Remove GpuAttributeReference #199

Closed
revans2 opened this issue Jun 17, 2020 · 1 comment · Fixed by #253
Closed

[FEA] Remove GpuAttributeReference #199

revans2 opened this issue Jun 17, 2020 · 1 comment · Fixed by #253
Assignees
Labels
feature request New feature or request

Comments

@revans2
Copy link
Collaborator

revans2 commented Jun 17, 2020

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
We have run into a lot of issues with GpuAttributeReference It would be great if we could just replace it with AttributeReference. The reason we originally split the two was so that we could have type safety. A GpuExpressions has children that are all GpuExpressions too. But it has resulted in more problems then we hoped to prevent.

This is to discuss if we should remove them and then to do it if we decide it is the right course of action to take.

@revans2 revans2 added feature request New feature or request ? - Needs Triage Need team to review and classify labels Jun 17, 2020
@andygrove
Copy link
Contributor

This has certainly been one of the challenges during testing with AQE, where Spark code fails to bind references because it is looking for AttributeReference and does not recognize GpuAttributeReference.

@revans2 revans2 self-assigned this Jun 18, 2020
@revans2 revans2 removed the ? - Needs Triage Need team to review and classify label Jun 18, 2020
tgravescs pushed a commit to tgravescs/spark-rapids that referenced this issue Nov 30, 2023
Signed-off-by: Robert (Bobby) Evans <bobby@apache.org>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
feature request New feature or request
Projects
None yet
2 participants