Can we add an option in StructKind, say, PEEK_FIELDS_NO_STAR_EXPANSION? And modify SqlValidatorImpl.java to disable star expansion optionally? Thanks a lot.
Shuyi On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 11:59 PM, Shuyi Chen <suez1...@gmail.com> wrote: > We do want to use the PEEK_FIELDS behavior as Flink does support > RecordType. But I believe Avatica is not used in Flink SQL API. > > Is it possible to add an option in Calcite to disable the flattening > behavior when using PEEK_FIELDS? Or what do you suggest? > > Thanks. > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 9:03 PM, Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> wrote: > >> PEEK_FIELDS was added as part of https://issues.apache.org/jira >> /browse/CALCITE-1208 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-1208>, >> basically to allow us to implement Phoenix’s “column family” feature, where >> it’s optional whether you qualify a column with its column family. >> >> If you don’t have that requirement, you probably shouldn’t use >> PEEK_FIELDS or PEEK_FIELDS_DEFAULT. >> >> Julian >> >> > On Jun 16, 2017, at 6:07 PM, Shuyi Chen <suez1...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Hi all, >> > >> > Our team are looking into integration of Flink with Calcite. We found >> that >> > when we set the RelRecordType to use the PEEK_FIELDS/PEEK_FIELDS_DEFAUL >> T >> > name resolution policy. A "select * from Table" will yield a recursively >> > flatten result. For example, >> > >> > Table: >> > a: Int >> > b: Record(f1: Int, f2: Record(f3: String, f4:Int)) >> > >> > "select * from Table" will return tuples of (a, b.f1, b.f2.f3, b.f2.f4) >> > instead of (a, b) when we use PEEK_FIELDS/PEEK_FIELDS_DEFAULT for the >> > RelRecordType. >> > >> > Using FULLY_QUALIFIED will yield the expected result (a, b) >> > >> > We found that this recursive flattening behavior was controlled by this >> > *kind* field in RelRecordType, which states in the documentation that >> it's >> > used for resolving fields in record types. >> > >> > I am wondering if this is an expected behavior, or should we fix it? >> Thanks >> > a lot. >> > >> > Shuyi >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your >> future." >> >> > > > -- > "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future." > -- "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future."
