Since there's no response I am assuming nobody cares about this code... Jira is HIVE-5134, I will attach a patch with removal this week.
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Sergey Shelukhin <ser...@hortonworks.com>wrote: > Hi. > > I think there are issues with the way hive can currently do LIKE > operator JDO pushdown and it the code should be removed for partitions > and tables. > Are there objections to removing LIKE from Filter.g and related areas? > If no I will file a JIRA and do it. > > Details: > There's code in metastore that is capable of pushing down LIKE > expression into JDO for string partition keys, as well as tables. > The code for tables doesn't appear used, and partition code definitely > doesn't run in Hive proper because metastore client doesn't send LIKE > expressions to server. It may be used in e.g. HCat and other places, > but after asking some people here, I found out it probably isn't. > I was trying to make it run and noticed some problems: > 1) For partitions, Hive sends SQL patterns in a filter for like, e.g. > "%foo%", whereas metastore passes them into matches() JDOQL method > which expects Java regex. > 2) Converting the pattern to Java regex via UDFLike method, I found > out that not all regexes appear to work in DN. ".*foo" seems to work > but anything complex (such as escaping the pattern using > Pattern.quote, which UDFLike does) breaks and no longer matches > properly. > 3) I tried to implement common cases using JDO methods > startsWith/endsWith/indexOf (I will file a JIRA), but when I run tests > on Derby, they also appear to have problems with some strings (for > example, partition with backslash in the name cannot be matched by > LIKE "%\%" (single backslash in a string), after being converted to > .indexOf(param) where param is "\" (escaping the backslash once again > doesn't work either, and anyway there's no documented reason why it > shouldn't work properly), while other characters match correctly, even > e.g. "%". > > For tables, there's no SQL-like, it expects Java regex, but I am not > convinced all Java regexes are going to work. > > So, I think that for future correctness sake it's better to remove this > code. > -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You.
