[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-3896?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17076706#comment-17076706
]
Stamatis Zampetakis commented on CALCITE-3896:
----------------------------------------------
Thanks for moving this forward [~hyuan]. I do understand the problem but not
completely your proposal. Who is calling the {{passThrough}} method, and when?
> Pass through parent trait requests to child operators
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CALCITE-3896
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-3896
> Project: Calcite
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: core
> Reporter: Haisheng Yuan
> Priority: Major
>
> This is not on-demand trait requests as described in [mailing
> list|http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/calcite-dev/201910.mbox/%[email protected]%3e],
> which requires the overhaul of the core planner. This ticket tries to enable
> VolcanoPlanner with basic and minimal ability to pass through parent trait
> request to child operators without rules, though may not be flexible or
> powerful, but should be able to work with current Calcite application with
> minimal changes.
> The method for physical operators to implement would be:
> {code:java}
> interface RelNode {
> RelNode passThrough(RelTraitSet required);
> }
> {code}
> Given that Calcite's physical operators decides its child operators' traits
> when the physical operator is created in physical implementation rule, there
> are some drawback that can't be avoided. e.g., given the following plan:
> {code:java}
> StreamAgg on [a]
> +-- MergeJoin on [a, b, c]
> |--- TableScan foo
> +--- TableScan bar
> {code}
> Suppose the MergeJoin implementation rule generates several mergejoins that
> distributes by [a], [a,b], [a,b,c] separately. Then we pass parent operator
> StreamAgg's trait request to MergeJoin. Since MergeJoin[a] satisfies parent's
> request, nothing to do. Next pass request to MergeJoin[a,b], we get
> MergeJoin[a], then pass request to MergeJoin[a,b,c], we get MergeJoin[a]
> again. We know they are redundant and there is no need to pass through parent
> operator's trait request, but these MergeJoin operators are independent and
> agnostic of each other's existence.
> The ideal way is that in physical implementation rule, during the creation of
> physical operator, it should not care about itself and its child operators'
> physical traits. But this is another different topic.
> Anyway, better than nothing, once it is done, we can provide the option to
> obsolete or disable {{AbstractConverter}}, but still be able to do property
> enforcement.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
