gianm opened a new issue, #14154:
URL: https://github.com/apache/druid/issues/14154

   By default, today (Druid 25) we have these defaults:
   
   ```
   druid.generic.useDefaultValueForNull = true
   druid.expressions.useStrictBooleans = false
   ```
   
   This issue is about flipping them to:
   
   ```
   druid.generic.useDefaultValueForNull = false
   druid.expressions.useStrictBooleans = true
   ```
   
   This would enable SQL-compatible [null 
handling](https://druid.apache.org/docs/latest/querying/sql-data-types.html#null-values)
 and [strict 
booleans](https://druid.apache.org/docs/latest/querying/sql-data-types.html#boolean-logic)
 by default, meaning support for:
   
   - Nullable numeric columns
   - Null and empty string being differentiated in string columns
   - SQL-compatible JOIN behavior
   - Three-valued boolean logic for expressions
   
   This would all be great for any new users using SQL, and possibly even great 
for existing users on SQL, to the degree that they thought we already behaved 
this way by default 🙂
   
   The main prerequisite I am aware of is that we need to ensure that it is 
possible for segments written in one null-handling mode to be readable by 
servers configured with the other mode. This is already true for segments 
written in default-value mode: they are read just fine by servers in 
SQL-compatible mode. But segments written in SQL-compatible mode aren't always 
read properly in default-value mode. This PR addresses it: #14142
   
   I am not aware of any prerequisites for changing the default scrict-booleans 
mode.


-- 
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]

Reply via email to