xiedeyantu commented on code in PR #22564:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/22564#discussion_r3332284248
##########
datafusion/functions/src/math/log.rs:
##########
@@ -358,43 +386,83 @@ impl ScalarUDFImpl for LogFunc {
} else {
lit(ScalarValue::new_ten(&number_datatype)?)
};
+ let base_datatype = info.get_data_type(&base)?;
+
+ if is_zero_literal(&number, &number_datatype)?
+ || is_zero_literal(&base, &base_datatype)?
+ {
+ return Ok(ExprSimplifyResult::Original(original_log_args(
+ num_args, &base, &number,
+ )?));
+ }
+
+ let base_is_valid_literal = is_valid_log_base_literal(&base)?;
match number {
Expr::Literal(value, _)
- if value == ScalarValue::new_one(&number_datatype)? =>
+ if value == ScalarValue::new_one(&number_datatype)?
+ && base_is_valid_literal =>
{
Ok(ExprSimplifyResult::Simplified(lit(ScalarValue::new_zero(
&info.get_data_type(&base)?,
)?)))
}
Expr::ScalarFunction(ScalarFunction { func, mut args })
- if is_pow(&func) && args.len() == 2 && base == args[0] =>
+ if is_pow(&func)
+ && args.len() == 2
+ && base == args[0]
+ && base_is_valid_literal =>
Review Comment:
I apologize; this was indeed my oversight. I originally intended to
temporarily refrain from simplifying the reverse operations of log and power,
but I missed it in my tightening logic. I'd like to ask if it would be better
for us to temporarily abandon the simplification of these reverse operations?
Because I feel that we seem unable to know the true range of values for a
column (or an expression).
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
