[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-2302?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

Yuzhao Chen updated CALCITE-2302:
---------------------------------
    Description: 
Now many DBs have support implicit type cast, eg: SqlServer, Oracle, Hive.

Implicit type cast is an useful function for many cases, So we should support 
this.

I checkout Calcite code and found that:
 # Now we use a validator to validate our operands types[ through kinds of 
namespaces and scopes ]
 # Most of the validations will finally goes to
{code:java}
SqlOperator.validateOperands
{code}

 # which will use validation logic defined in corresponding 
SqlOperandTypeChecker

What i'm confused about is where should i put the implicit type cast logic in? 
I figured out 2 ways:
 # Supply a tool class/rules to add casts into a parsed SqlNode tree which will 
then go through the validation logic later on.
 # Unleash the validation logic in kinds of SqlOperandTypeChecker, then modify 
the RelNode/RexNodes tree converted from a validated SqlNode tree to add in 
casts through custom RelOptRules.

So guys, which of the 2 ways should i go, or if there are better way to do this?

I need your help.

 

This is design doc: 
[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g2RUnLXyp_LjUlO-wbblKuP5hqEu3a_2Mt2k4dh6RwU/edit?usp=sharing]

 

This is the conversion types mapping: 

 

  was:
Now many DBs have support implicit type cast, eg: SqlServer, Oracle, Hive.

Implicit type cast is an useful function for many cases, So we should support 
this.

I checkout Calcite code and found that:
# Now we use a validator to validate our operands types[ through kinds of 
namespaces and scopes ]
# Most of the validations will finally goes to 
{code:java}
SqlOperator.validateOperands
{code}
# which will use validation logic defined in corresponding SqlOperandTypeChecker

What i'm confused about is where should i put the implicit type cast logic in? 
I figured out 2 ways:
# Supply a tool class/rules to add casts into a parsed SqlNode tree which will 
then go through the validation logic later on.
# Unleash the validation logic in kinds of SqlOperandTypeChecker, then modify 
the RelNode/RexNodes tree  converted from a validated SqlNode tree to add in 
casts through custom RelOptRules.

So guys, which of the 2 ways should i go, or if there are better way to do this?

I need your help.



> Implicit type cast support
> --------------------------
>
>                 Key: CALCITE-2302
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-2302
>             Project: Calcite
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: core
>    Affects Versions: 1.17.0
>            Reporter: Yuzhao Chen
>            Assignee: Julian Hyde
>            Priority: Major
>             Fix For: 1.17.0
>
>
> Now many DBs have support implicit type cast, eg: SqlServer, Oracle, Hive.
> Implicit type cast is an useful function for many cases, So we should support 
> this.
> I checkout Calcite code and found that:
>  # Now we use a validator to validate our operands types[ through kinds of 
> namespaces and scopes ]
>  # Most of the validations will finally goes to
> {code:java}
> SqlOperator.validateOperands
> {code}
>  # which will use validation logic defined in corresponding 
> SqlOperandTypeChecker
> What i'm confused about is where should i put the implicit type cast logic 
> in? I figured out 2 ways:
>  # Supply a tool class/rules to add casts into a parsed SqlNode tree which 
> will then go through the validation logic later on.
>  # Unleash the validation logic in kinds of SqlOperandTypeChecker, then 
> modify the RelNode/RexNodes tree converted from a validated SqlNode tree to 
> add in casts through custom RelOptRules.
> So guys, which of the 2 ways should i go, or if there are better way to do 
> this?
> I need your help.
>  
> This is design doc: 
> [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g2RUnLXyp_LjUlO-wbblKuP5hqEu3a_2Mt2k4dh6RwU/edit?usp=sharing]
>  
> This is the conversion types mapping: 
>  



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

Reply via email to