[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-2249?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13193227#comment-13193227
]
Phabricator commented on HIVE-2249:
-----------------------------------
kevinwilfong has commented on the revision "HIVE-2249 [jira] When creating
constant expression for numbers, try to infer type from another comparison
operand, instead of trying to use integer first, and then long and double".
I looked at the tests that were failing:
insert2_overwrite_partitions.q orders by the column one, but since there are
several rows with the same value in column one, this does not guarantee a the
rows will be returned in the same order, and hence, with the limit 5, you are
not guaranteed to get the same rows. I'm not sure why your change would cause
the order to differ, but it shouldn't be an issue.
It looks like the order by was added to try and make the test deterministic.
Since your code can't be committed if tests are failing, could you change the
order by to be on one, two. This should guarantee you get the same rows every
time.
Also, it would probably be worth while to do this in
insert1_overwrite_partitions.q as well, as it does a similar order by.
I haven't been able to reproduce a failure in ppr_pushdown.q so far.
INLINE COMMENTS
ql/src/java/org/apache/hadoop/hive/ql/parse/TypeCheckProcFactory.java:709-712
This is never used.
REVISION DETAIL
https://reviews.facebook.net/D1383
> When creating constant expression for numbers, try to infer type from another
> comparison operand, instead of trying to use integer first, and then long and
> double
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HIVE-2249
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-2249
> Project: Hive
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Siying Dong
> Assignee: Joseph Barillari
> Attachments: HIVE-2249.1.patch.txt, HIVE-2249.2.patch.txt,
> HIVE-2249.D1383.1.patch
>
>
> The current code to build constant expression for numbers, here is the code:
> try {
> v = Double.valueOf(expr.getText());
> v = Long.valueOf(expr.getText());
> v = Integer.valueOf(expr.getText());
> } catch (NumberFormatException e) {
> // do nothing here, we will throw an exception in the following block
> }
> if (v == null) {
> throw new SemanticException(ErrorMsg.INVALID_NUMERICAL_CONSTANT
> .getMsg(expr));
> }
> return new ExprNodeConstantDesc(v);
> The for the case that "WHERE <BIG_INT_COLUMN> = 0", or "WHERE <DOUBLE_COLUMN>
> = 0", we always have to do a type conversion when comparing, which is
> unnecessary if it is slightly smarter to choose type when creating the
> constant expression. We can simply walk one level up the tree, find another
> comparison party and use the same type with that one if it is possible. For
> user's wrong query like '<INT_COLUMN>=1.1', we can even do more.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
