Skip to content

branch-3.1: [thirdparty](patch) Support a better way to get offset in cctz #57999 #58058

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
Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: branch-3.1
Choose a base branch
from
Open

branch-3.1: [thirdparty](patch) Support a better way to get offset in cctz #57999 #58058

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

@github-actions github-actions bot commented Nov 15, 2025

Cherry-picked from #57999

@linrrzqqq
[thirdparty](patch) Support a better way to get offset in cctz (#57999)
9ac99e2 
### What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: close #xxx

Related PR: #xxx

Problem Summary:

The construction cost of civil_second in cctz is expensive, details can
be seen: #57423.

In some cases, we do not need to construct the complete civil_time, but
only the UTC offset is required, like:`HOUR(FROM_UNIXTIME(ts))`

This PR supports the lookup_offset function in cctz, which has the same
return type as lookup, but the civil_second is empty, avoiding the
expensive construction cost.

```cpp
return {{}, utc_offset, is_dst, abbreviations[abbr_index]};
```
@github-actions github-actions bot requested a review from morrySnow as a code owner November 15, 2025 10:05
@Thearas
Copy link
Contributor

Thearas commented Nov 15, 2025

Thank you for your contribution to Apache Doris.
Don't know what should be done next? See How to process your PR.

Please clearly describe your PR:

  1. What problem was fixed (it's best to include specific error reporting information). How it was fixed.
  2. Which behaviors were modified. What was the previous behavior, what is it now, why was it modified, and what possible impacts might there be.
  3. What features were added. Why was this function added?
  4. Which code was refactored and why was this part of the code refactored?
  5. Which functions were optimized and what is the difference before and after the optimization?

@Thearas
Copy link
Contributor

Thearas commented Nov 15, 2025

run buildall

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@morrySnow morrySnow Awaiting requested review from morrySnow morrySnow is a code owner

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@Thearas @linrrzqqq