onursatici opened a new pull request, #13709:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/13709
## Which issue does this PR close?
<!--
We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and
enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can
link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123`
indicates that this PR will close issue #123.
-->
Closes #.
## Rationale for this change
Unions with multiple tables result in an optimised plan with an Aggregate
Node on top, example:
```sql
SELECT a FROM t1 UNION (SELECT a from t1 UNION SELECT a from t2)
```
```
Aggregate: groupBy=[[t1.a]], aggr=[[]] [a:Int64;N]
Union [a:Int64;N]
TableScan: t1 projection=[a] [a:Int64;N]
TableScan: t1 projection=[a] [a:Int64;N]
TableScan: t2 projection=[a] [a:Int64;N]
```
This Aggregate node uses the first tables name as references in its
`groupBy`. Currently on `main` deserialisation from proto gets the last child
of the Union node.
I added a test in this PR that previously failed to deserialise the
optimised plan above with:
```
SchemaError(FieldNotFound { field: Column { relation: Some(Bare { table:
"t1" }), name: "a" }, valid_fields: [Column { relation: Some(Bare { table: "t2"
}), name: "a" }] }
```
<!--
Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in
the issue then this section is not needed.
Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your
changes and offer better suggestions for fixes.
-->
## What changes are included in this PR?
Changes try_into_logical_plan for union nodes to create a nested union
starting from the first child of the union node in the serialised plan, not the
last.
<!--
There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is
sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR.
-->
## Are these changes tested?
Added a test that fails on `main`
<!--
We typically require tests for all PRs in order to:
1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes
2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code
If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are
they covered by existing tests)?
-->
## Are there any user-facing changes?
<!--
If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be
updated before approving the PR.
-->
<!--
If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api
change` label.
-->
--
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]
