Thank you, That makes sense. But it seems I should see a filter pushed below for a where on a union, no? ie. SELECT t2.field FROM ( SELECT id, field FROM table1 UNION ALL SELECT id, field FROM table2 UNION ALL SELECT id, field FROM table3) as t2 WHERE t2.field = 'test'
Thank you again! Eric On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 5:43 AM Stamatis Zampetakis <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Eric, > > When you have a disjunction in the WHERE clause it may not be safe to > push the condition below a join especially when it comes to outer > joins. I suppose that the FilterJoinRule [1] is the place that you > want to check to see if the filter can be pushed below the join and > into the scan. > > Best, > Stamatis > > [1] > https://github.com/apache/calcite/blob/8d9b27f1ace7f975407920cb88806715b1f0ef82/core/src/main/java/org/apache/calcite/rel/rules/FilterJoinRule.java > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 11:22 PM Eric Berryman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > I'm making a FilterableTable with LDAP as a backend. > > > > I noticed in the FilterableTable method: > > public Enumerable<Object[]> scan(DataContext root, List<RexNode> filters) > > > > The filters list is empty if the sql where clause is checking the same > > field in all tables. > > ie. > > select test1.field test2.field > > from test1 > > full outer join test2 on test1.id = test2.id > > where test1.field = 'myval' or test2.field = 'myval'; > > > > When I do an EXPLAIN PLAN FOR select ... > > I notice the BindableTableScan filters array is empty with both: > > where test1.field = 'myval' or test2.field = 'myval'; > > and it has the filter if I remove one: > > where test1.field = 'myval' > > > > Is there an example I could be pointed to help understand the query > planner > > here, and hopefully write my implementation such that the filters show up > > as expected for each table? > > > > Thank you! > > Eric >
