Skip to content

Update overview.rst #2

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Closed
tdcmeehan wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Update overview.rst #2

tdcmeehan wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

@tdcmeehan
Copy link
Owner

@tdcmeehan tdcmeehan commented Aug 4, 2023

Description

Motivation and Context

Impact

Test Plan

Contributor checklist

  • Please make sure your submission complies with our development, formatting, commit message, and attribution guidelines.
  • PR description addresses the issue accurately and concisely. If the change is non-trivial, a GitHub Issue is referenced.
  • Documented new properties (with its default value), SQL syntax, functions, or other functionality.
  • If release notes are required, they follow the release notes guidelines.
  • Adequate tests were added if applicable.
  • CI passed.

Release Notes

Please follow release notes guidelines and fill in the release notes below.

== RELEASE NOTES ==

General Changes
* ...
* ...

Hive Changes
* ...
* ...

If release note is NOT required, use:

== NO RELEASE NOTE ==

@tdcmeehan tdcmeehan closed this Aug 4, 2023
tdcmeehan pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 8, 2026
@claude
Update critical review: 6 new issues, refresh status of all 18
6aa54c5 
New issues:
- #13: Cost model assumes local NVMe, invalid for S3/HDFS (0.3s becomes 5-30s)
- prestodb#14: Parquet BF section is 115-line dead end, should be condensed
- prestodb#15: Duplicate section numbering (two "Section 6" headers)
- prestodb#16: Superlinear join efficiency claims lack citations
- prestodb#17: CTE materialization cost missing from quantitative cost model
- prestodb#18: Reduced hash table may still exceed VRAM — fallback composition unclear

Updated existing issues: #1,#3 remaining gaps noted, #2 now worse (more
occurrences), #7 partially addressed. 12 open issues total.

https://claude.ai/code/session_01SAXk4AS8yQyQkhRVi6RQie
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

No reviews

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@tdcmeehan