[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-2582?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16625551#comment-16625551
]
Vladimir Sitnikov commented on CALCITE-2582:
--------------------------------------------
{quote}It still bothers me a bit the fact that while somebody may expect an
EnumerableFilter he will obtain a LogicalValues (an operator in a different
convention).{quote}
Different convention won't happen as traits are copied, thus LogicalValues
would be converted to EnumerableValues or something like that.
{quote}I agree but I don't see from where we can obtain the context.{quote}
Please use {{call.getPlanner().getContext()}}
I wonder if we can have Dagger or something like that for dependency resolution.
> FilterProjectTransposeRule does not always simplify the new filter condition
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CALCITE-2582
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-2582
> Project: Calcite
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: core
> Affects Versions: 1.17.0
> Reporter: Stamatis Zampetakis
> Assignee: Julian Hyde
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 1.18.0
>
>
> After pushing the filter below the project a new condition is going to be
> generated along with a new Filter operator. The new condition is not going to
> be simplified if the filter operator is copied and not created using the
> RelBuilder.
> Thus the resulting plan may contain redundant conditions which can have a
> slight impact on performance. Apart, from that tests verifying the resulting
> (logical/physical) plan may produce indeterministic results if the rule is
> applied with (a different order and in combination with other rules).
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
