[CALCITE-3830] The ‘approximate’ field should be considered when computing the digest of AggregateCall #1835
Conversation
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
added 2 commits
February 27, 2020 13:40
…uting the digest of AggregateCall
|
Many plan tests containing 'APPROX_COUNT_DISTINCT' may be failing, I'm fixing this... |
danny0405
reviewed
Feb 27, 2020
| // currently approximate = true is only for 'APPROX_COUNT_DISTINCT' | ||
| if (approximate && distinct) { | ||
| buf.append("APPROX_COUNT_DISTINCT"); | ||
| } else { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agreed with Julian, we should not modify the agg call name which is a unique identifier of the function, better to add some distinct flag to the Aggregate digest instead:
public RelWriter explainTerms(RelWriter pw) {
// We skip the "groups" element if it is a singleton of "group".
super.explainTerms(pw)
.item("group", groupSet)
.itemIf("groups", groupSets, getGroupType() != Group.SIMPLE)
.itemIf("aggs", aggCalls, pw.nest());
if (!pw.nest()) {
for (Ord<AggregateCall> ord : Ord.zip(aggCalls)) {
pw.item(Util.first(ord.e.name, "agg#" + ord.i), ord.e);
}
}
return pw;
}There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would prefer to add some distinct flag to AggregateCall rather than Aggregate, because 'approximate' is a property of AggregateCall, not Aggregate. What do you think, Danny?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Either is fine to me, go with your choice. BTW, that format of the approximate call would be like ? approximate call_name(args) ? or call_name()... filter $0 approximate ?
danny0405
added
the
LGTM-will-merge-soon
Aaaaaaron
pushed a commit
to Aaaaaaron/calcite
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 21, 2020
…uting the digest of AggregateCall Add 'APPROXIMATE' keyword for the agg call to make the digest different with call that isn't approximate. close apache#1835 (cherry picked from commit cdd141d)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
In planner optimization, the digest of Aggregate node contains digest of its AggregateCall, i.e. AggregateCall.toString, but currently the 'approximate' filed of AggregateCall is not considered in toString() method, which may leads to the situation two different relNodes are considered as identical in planner optimizing phase.
Here is an example:
After applying a rule, the plan is:
As showing in the example, after optimizing, these two Aggregates are considered as identical (both with 89 as relNode ID).