According to the SQL standard (SQL 2011: 4.6.3 section): Within a value of type interval, the first field is constrained only by the > <interval leading field precision> of the associated <interval qualifier>. > Table 6, “Valid values for fields in INTERVAL values”, specifies the con- > straints on subsequent field values. > <interval leading field precision> ::= > <unsigned integer>
For the first field, the values could be any unsigned integer. I think we can add this support. Viliam Durina <[email protected]> 于2022年10月25日周二 20:01写道： > Hi all, > > In Calcite the precision of SECOND interval is 2 by default. That is, if > one specifies `INTERVAL `100` SECONDS`, the validation currently fails with > `Interval field value 100 exceeds precision of SECOND(2) field`. One has to > specify either `INTERVAL '1:40' MINUTE TO SECOND` or `INTERVAL '100' > SECOND(3)`. > > I checked the behavior in other products, all major databases allow larger > numbers. For example, MySQL, such values are allowed, but MySQL dialect in > calcite doesn't allow it. Wdyt about adding such support? > > With kind regards, > Viliam > > -- > This message contains confidential information and is intended only for > the > individuals named. If you are not the named addressee you should not > disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender > immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and > delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be > guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, > corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. > The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions > in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail > transmission. If verification is required, please request a hard-copy > version. -Hazelcast > -- Best, Benchao Li
