[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-3203?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
jin xing updated CALCITE-3203:
------------------------------
Description:
In current code, {{SubstitutionVisitor}} &
{{MaterializedViewSubstitutionVisitor}} fail to support below matching:
{code:java}
query: Project(projects: [$0, *(2, $1)])
Aggregate(groupSet: {0}, groupSets: [{0}], calls: [SUM($1)])
Scan(table: [hr, emps])</li>
target: Project(projects: [$0, *(2, $1), *(2, $2)])
Aggregate(groupSet: {0}, groupSets: [{0}], calls: [SUM($1),
COUNT()])
Scan(table: [hr, emps])</li>
{code}
And below test fails
{code:java}
// MaterializationTest.java
@Test public void testAggregate() {
checkMaterialize(
"select \"deptno\", count(1), 2 * sum(\"empid\") from "
+ "(select * from \"emps\" union all select * from \"emps\")"
+ "group by \"deptno\"",
"select \"deptno\", 2 * sum(\"empid\") from "
+ "(select * from \"emps\" union all select * from \"emps\")"
+ "group by \"deptno\"");
}
{code}
The reason is that {{Project&Aggregate}} are not taken into consideration at
the same time in current matching rules.
It might make sense to create a rule of
{{ProjectOnAggregateToProjectOnAggregateUnifyRule}} to handle such case.
was:
In current code, {{SubstitutionVisitor}} &
{{MaterializedViewSubstitutionVisitor}} fail to support below matching:
{code:java}
query: Project(projects: [$0, *(2, $1)])
Aggregate(groupSet: {0}, groupSets: [{0}], calls: [SUM($1)])
Scan(table: [hr, emps])</li>
target: Project(projects: [$0, *(2, $1), *(2, $2)])
Aggregate(groupSet: {0}, groupSets: [{0}], calls: [SUM($1),
COUNT()])
Scan(table: [hr, emps])</li>
{code}
And below test fails
{code:java}
MaterializationTest.java
@Test public void testAggregate() {
checkMaterialize(
"select \"deptno\", count(1), 2 * sum(\"empid\") from "
+ "(select * from \"emps\" union all select * from \"emps\")"
+ "group by \"deptno\"",
"select \"deptno\", 2 * sum(\"empid\") from "
+ "(select * from \"emps\" union all select * from \"emps\")"
+ "group by \"deptno\"");
}
{code}
The reason is that {{Project&Aggregate}} are not taken into consideration at
the same time in current matching rules.
It might make sense to create a rule of
{{ProjectOnAggregateToProjectOnAggregateUnifyRule}} to handle such case.
> When matching materializations, match Project with child of Aggregate
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CALCITE-3203
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-3203
> Project: Calcite
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: core
> Reporter: jin xing
> Priority: Major
>
> In current code, {{SubstitutionVisitor}} &
> {{MaterializedViewSubstitutionVisitor}} fail to support below matching:
> {code:java}
> query: Project(projects: [$0, *(2, $1)])
> Aggregate(groupSet: {0}, groupSets: [{0}], calls: [SUM($1)])
> Scan(table: [hr, emps])</li>
> target: Project(projects: [$0, *(2, $1), *(2, $2)])
> Aggregate(groupSet: {0}, groupSets: [{0}], calls: [SUM($1),
> COUNT()])
> Scan(table: [hr, emps])</li>
> {code}
> And below test fails
> {code:java}
> // MaterializationTest.java
> @Test public void testAggregate() {
> checkMaterialize(
> "select \"deptno\", count(1), 2 * sum(\"empid\") from "
> + "(select * from \"emps\" union all select * from \"emps\")"
> + "group by \"deptno\"",
> "select \"deptno\", 2 * sum(\"empid\") from "
> + "(select * from \"emps\" union all select * from \"emps\")"
> + "group by \"deptno\"");
> }
> {code}
> The reason is that {{Project&Aggregate}} are not taken into consideration at
> the same time in current matching rules.
> It might make sense to create a rule of
> {{ProjectOnAggregateToProjectOnAggregateUnifyRule}} to handle such case.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.14#76016)
