jacktengg opened a new pull request, #70469:
URL: https://github.com/apache/doris/pull/70469
Issue Number: N/A
Related PR: N/A
Problem Summary: In America/New_York, the local datetime range [2024-03-10
02:30:00, 2024-03-10 03:00:00.100000) does not convert monotonically to
TIMESTAMPTZ. The row 02:40:00.900000 converts to 07:00:00.900000 UTC, above the
converted upper endpoint 07:00:00.100000 UTC. Cast treated DATETIMEV2 to
TIMESTAMPTZ as monotonic, so partition pruning removed a partition that
contained a matching row. Route this cast through the existing local-time gap
check. Keep the fixed-offset fast path and pruning for ranges outside clock
gaps. Add a regression test with one partition, one column, and one row.
Fix missing query results when partition predicates cast DATETIME values to
TIMESTAMPTZ across a daylight-saving time gap.
- Test:
- Unit Test: 55 tests passed through run-fe-ut.sh for
CastMonotonicityTest, TimestampNsMonotonicityTest, FromSecondMonotonicTest,
PartitionPrunerTest, and RuntimeFilterPruneClassifierTest
- Regression test: run-regression-test.sh --run -d
datatype_p0/timestamptz -s test_timestamptz_cast_gap_partition_prune; generate
the output with -genOut, then verify it with a normal run
- Manual test: reproduce VEMPTYSET before the fix; verify one returned
row and partitions=1/1 after the fix; compare FE and BE endpoint results
- Regression environment: rebuilt FE and the existing local BE with
be_exec_version=18
- Build and style: build.sh --fe -j8 with Checkstyle enabled; final mvn
checkstyle:check -pl fe-core
- Behavior changed: Yes, retain partitions whose cast input range includes a
clock gap to prevent missing matching rows
- Does this need documentation: No
### Background
<!-- How the feature or module this PR touches works today, in two to four
plain sentences, for a reviewer who doesn't know it. Link the user doc if there
is one. Leave the problem and the fix to Problem Summary. -->
### What problem does this PR solve?
<!-- Issue Number: "close #N" if this PR resolves the issue, "#N" if it only
relates to it, "None" if there is none. A Feature needs an issue. -->
<!-- Related PR: "#N (relation)" for each PR a reviewer should know about,
such as "#123 (introduced the bug)", separated by commas. Write "None" if no
related PR is known. -->
<!-- PR Type: Bugfix, Performance, Feature, Enhancement, Refactor, Test,
Build/CI/Chore, Revert, Release/Dependency, or Other. -->
Issue Number:
Related PR:
PR Type:
Problem Summary:
<!-- Two to five sentences: the problem or need and who is affected; the
approach in one sentence; when the diff is larger than that suggests, what else
it had to handle, or that most of it is tests; and what existing users see
after an upgrade. -->
### Details
<!--
For a diff of more than about 300 changed lines, start with "- **Change
map:**": how many lines are production code, tests, generated files, and docs,
then the code in parts, each with the problem it handles and its size.
Then answer each field of your PR type on its own line, as "- **Field:**
answer", in this order:
Bugfix: Frequency, Root cause, Why existing tests missed it, Fix, Other
paths and branches
Performance: Why it was slow, Optimization, Results, Applicability and cost
Feature: Scope, Design, Usage, Default behavior, Compatibility
Enhancement: Before and after, Configs and defaults, Impact on existing
users
Refactor: Moves vs. logic changes, Behavior change, Compatibility,
Performance impact, Rollback
Test, adding tests: Scenarios, What existing tests miss, Fails when broken
Test, fixing a test: Failure, Cause, Stability evidence
Build/CI/Chore: Affected, Developer and release impact, License and
third-party, Rollback
Revert: Why not fix forward, Original author notified, Follow-up
Release/Dependency: Versions, Upstream changes, Compatibility, Rollback
Other: Why Other
"None" is a valid answer when it is true. Don't restate the diff.
-->
### Testing
<!-- The tests, suites, or commands that ran, what each shows, and where it
ran (locally or in CI). For a fix, the test that fails before it and passes
after. -->
### Notes for Reviewers
<!-- Optional; delete this section if there is nothing to say. Why each
non-obvious edit was made, what you are unsure about, and where to start
reading if Details has no Change map. -->
### Release note
<!-- One paragraph on what users will notice, or None. -->
### Check List (For Author)
<!-- Behavior changed: "No", or "Yes (see Details)" with a Behavior change
field in Details. -->
<!-- Does this need documentation: "No", or "Yes" with the
apache/doris-website PR or the plan. -->
<!-- Pre-submission status: "Ready"; "Partially verified: " and what is not
verified; or "Not ready: " and why, for a Draft PR. -->
- Behavior changed:
- Does this need documentation:
- Pre-submission status:
### AI Disclosure
<!-- Tool: the agent and model, or None. Generated: the parts it wrote
(code, tests, this description), or None. Human review: what you reviewed of
the generated parts, or "Not applicable" without AI tools. You may add "-
Prompts:" to summarize how you directed the agent. -->
- Tool:
- Generated:
- Human review:
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
