I found EnumerableTableFunctionScanRule and EnumerableTableFunctionScan are not tested in unit tests in core (checked by code search in core/test). The right approach seems to me now is add more tests and then gradually see if I can narrow down the problem.
Are there recommended places that I should add more tests? -Rui On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 8:38 PM Rui Wang <ruw...@google.com> wrote: > Xiening - You can reproduce it by running CoreQuidemTest in [1]. > > > Haisheng - those enumerable rules all exist. My change in [1] shouldn't > require implementing new enumerable rules. > > > > [1]: https://github.com/amaliujia/calcite/tree/rw-add_TVF_TUMBLE > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 12:04 PM Haisheng Yuan <h.y...@alibaba-inc.com> > wrote: > >> Yes, looks like EnumerableTableFunctionScan doesn't override >> computeSelfCost. >> >> - Haisheng >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> 发件人：Haisheng Yuan<h.y...@alibaba-inc.com> >> 日 期：2019年11月09日 04:01:19 >> 收件人：Apache Calcite dev list<dev@calcite.apache.org> >> 主 题：Re: Re: Optimizer: All the inputs have relevant nodes, however the >> cost is still infinite. >> >> It is not surprising to get an infinitive cost, since the operators in >> the plan are logical operators, which need to be converted to physical >> operators to be costed. Did you try to add some implementation rules to the >> rule set, e.g. EnumerableProjectRule, EnumerableTableFunctionScanRule, etc.. >> >> - Haisheng >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> 发件人：Xiening Dai<xndai....@gmail.com> >> 日 期：2019年11月09日 03:35:03 >> 收件人：<dev@calcite.apache.org> >> 主 题：Re: Optimizer: All the inputs have relevant nodes, however the cost >> is still infinite. >> >> Are you able to provide a test case to repro on current code base? >> >> From the error message, the given subset’s best RelNode is not available, >> aka cost is infinite. There could be multiple cases leading to it. >> >> >> > On Nov 8, 2019, at 11:28 AM, Rui Wang <amaliu...@apache.org> wrote: >> > >> > My current guess is it could because of `computeSelfCost` of >> > `EnumerableTableFunctionScan`. >> > >> > >> > -Rui >> > >> > On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 10:04 AM Rui Wang <amaliu...@apache.org> wrote: >> > >> >> Hello community: >> >> >> >> I am stuck an optimizer error while working on Calcite-3272. I am less >> >> familiar with Calcite's optimizer and struggled to debug the following >> >> error message. Is there some hints on what direction I should go? I can >> >> also provide more information if that is helpful. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> java.sql.SQLException: Error while executing SQL "select * FROM >> >> TABLE(TUMBLE(TABLE ORDERS, 'ROWTIME', INTERVAL '1' MINUTE))": There >> are not >> >> enough rules to produce a node with desired properties: >> >> convention=ENUMERABLE, sort=[]. All the inputs have relevant nodes, >> however >> >> the cost is still infinite. >> >>> Root: rel#26:Subset#2.ENUMERABLE.[] >> >>> Original rel: >> >>> LogicalProject(ROWTIME=[$0], ID=[$1], PRODUCT=[$2], UNITS=[$3], >> >> wstart=[$4], wend=[$5]): rowcount = 100.0, cumulative cost = >> >> {1.7976931348623157E308 rows, 1.7976931348623157E308 cpu, >> >> 1.7976931348623157E308 io}, id = 12 >> >>> LogicalTableFunctionScan(invocation=[TUMBLE($3, 'ROWTIME', >> >> 60000:INTERVAL MINUTE)], rowType=[RecordType(TIMESTAMP(0) ROWTIME, >> INTEGER >> >> ID, VARCHAR(10) PRODUCT, INTEGER UNITS, TIMESTAMP(0) wstart, >> TIMESTAMP(0) >> >> wend)]): rowcount = 100.0, cumulative cost = {1.7976931348623157E308 >> rows, >> >> 1.7976931348623157E308 cpu, 1.7976931348623157E308 io}, id = 10 >> >>> LogicalProject(ROWTIME=[$0], ID=[$1], PRODUCT=[$2], UNITS=[$3]): >> >> rowcount = 100.0, cumulative cost = {200.0 rows, 501.0 cpu, 0.0 io}, >> id = 8 >> >>> LogicalTableScan(table=[[ORINOCO, ORDERS]]): rowcount = 100.0, >> >> cumulative cost = {100.0 rows, 101.0 cpu, 0.0 io}, id = 2 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -Rui >> >> >> >>
