[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-2044?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16250752#comment-16250752
]
Julian Hyde commented on CALCITE-2044:
--------------------------------------
Reviewing
https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/565/commits/ddd2a65f69617f84432d91e72783c6c4b0f3ad25:
* Thanks for modernizing ScannableTableTest - much needed!
* I intend to go a bit further and change {{returns}} to {{returnsUnordered}}
in a few places.
* I don't understand why you changed {{typeFactory.builder()}} in a couple of
places - could I revert? (Yes I know FieldInfoBuilder is not nice but it is
deprecated so it won't be with us forever.)
> Tweak cost of BindableTableScan to make sure Project is pushed through
> Aggregate
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CALCITE-2044
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-2044
> Project: Calcite
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: core
> Reporter: Luis Fernando Kauer
> Assignee: Julian Hyde
> Priority: Minor
>
> Similar to [CALCITE-1876].
> Projects are not pushed to BindableTableScan when using
> ProjectableFilterableTable with aggregate functions.
> The reason is that the cost of BindableTableScan does not use projects (and
> filters), so the planner chooses a plan with Project node removed by
> ProjectRemoveRule.
> By tweaking the cost to use the number of used projects solved the problem.
> Any suggestion on the cost formula to take both projects and filters into
> account?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
