Hi, Julian

Thanks for your reply!

> I believe that variables can only be set in the current RelNode. (Read a row 
> from input, set the variable, then evaluate a Rex expression or restart the 
> right input. It’s like a ‘for’ loop.) 

Actually, this is in line with my expectations. So, I'll file a ticket for this.

-- 
Regards,
Konstantin Orlov




> On 17 Sep 2021, at 21:44, Julian Hyde <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> The sentence "Note: only {@link org.apache.calcite.rel.core.Correlate} should 
> set variables.” is no longer true, now we added correlated Filter and, I 
> believe, correlated Project. Maybe we should also add correlated Join (in 
> case the ON clause uses correlated variables).
> 
> I believe that variables can only be set in the current RelNode. (Read a row 
> from input, set the variable, then evaluate a Rex expression or restart the 
> right input. It’s like a ‘for’ loop.) In which case, what you are seeing is 
> wrong. But I’m not 100% sure.
> 
> Note that, unlike *set*, variables can be *used* anywhere within a tree 
> (generally in the right-hand input of a Correlate).
> 
> Maybe you could propose better javadoc. That is worth doing independent of 
> any bugs that you are trying to fix.
> 
> Julian
> 
> 
>> On Sep 17, 2021, at 5:43 AM, Konstantin Orlov <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi, folks
>> 
>> I have a question about org.apache.calcite.rel.RelNode#getVariablesSet.
>> Javadoc says, it returns variables that are set by current node:
>> 
>> /**
>>  * Returns the variables that are set in this relational
>>  * expression but also used and therefore not available to parents of this
>>  * relational expression.
>>  *
>>  * <p>Note: only {@link org.apache.calcite.rel.core.Correlate} should set
>>  * variables.
>>  *
>>  * @return Names of variables which are set in this relational
>>  *   expression
>>  */
>> Set<CorrelationId> getVariablesSet();
>> 
>> 
>> But I've got a plan where node returns all variables used by children nodes
>> regardless this variable are set by current or parent node.
>> 
>> Original query is:
>> 
>> SELECT *
>> FROM t1 as "outer"
>> WHERE a > (
>>      SELECT COUNT(*)
>>        FROM t1 as "inner"
>>       WHERE "inner".a IN (
>>             SELECT * 
>>               FROM table(system_range("inner".a, "inner".b + "outer".b))
>>       )
>> )
>> 
>> After SQL to Rel translation I've got plan as follow:
>> 
>> LogicalProject(A=[$2], B=[$3], C=[$4], D=[$5], E=[$6])
>> LogicalFilter(condition=[>($2, $SCALAR_QUERY({
>>       LogicalAggregate(group=[{}], COUNT(*)=[COUNT()])
>>         LogicalFilter(condition=[IN($2, {
>>               LogicalProject(X=[$0])
>>                 LogicalTableFunctionScan(invocation=[SYSTEM_RANGE($cor0.A, 
>> +($cor0.B, $cor2.B))], rowType=[RecordType(BIGINT X)])
>>               })], variablesSet=[[$cor0]])
>>           LogicalTableScan(table=[[PUBLIC, T1]])
>>       }))], variablesSet=[[$cor2]])
>>   LogicalTableScan(table=[[PUBLIC, T1]])
>> 
>> Every LogicalFilter introduce its own correlation variable, and everything is
>> OK so far.
>> 
>> But then I apply SubQueryRemoveRule and new plan looks like this:
>> 
>> LogicalProject(A=[$2], B=[$3], C=[$4], D=[$5], E=[$6])
>> LogicalProject(_KEY=[$0], _VAL=[$1], A=[$2], B=[$3], C=[$4], D=[$5], E=[$6])
>>   LogicalFilter(condition=[>($2, $7)])
>>     LogicalCorrelate(correlation=[$cor2], joinType=[left], 
>> requiredColumns=[{3}])
>>       LogicalTableScan(table=[[PUBLIC, T1]])
>>       LogicalAggregate(group=[{}], COUNT(*)=[COUNT()])
>>         LogicalProject(_KEY=[$0], _VAL=[$1], A=[$2], B=[$3], C=[$4], D=[$5], 
>> E=[$6])
>>           LogicalJoin(condition=[=($2, $7)], joinType=[inner])
>>             LogicalTableScan(table=[[PUBLIC, T1]])
>>             LogicalAggregate(group=[{0}])
>>               LogicalProject(X=[$0])
>>                 LogicalTableFunctionScan(invocation=[SYSTEM_RANGE($cor0.A, 
>> +($cor0.B, $cor2.B))], rowType=[RecordType(BIGINT X)])
>> 
>> 
>> At this point LogicalJoin.getVariablesSet() returns both "cor0" and "cor2"
>> variables which doesn't seem right.
>> 
>> Is such behaviour expected or it is a bug?
>> 
>> -- 
>> Regards,
>> Konstantin Orlov
>> 
>> 
> 

Reply via email to