[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-4213?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17189143#comment-17189143
]
Stamatis Zampetakis commented on CALCITE-4213:
----------------------------------------------
>From a quick look it seems again a result of plans having exactly the same
>cost but one dominates the other due to the order that rules are applied. I
>mark it as a bug and I guess as a regression since the test used to work at
>some point.
I assume that fixing this requires again tweaking the cost model in Druid.
> Druid plans with small intervals should be chosen over full interval scan
> plus filter
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CALCITE-4213
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-4213
> Project: Calcite
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: druid-adapter
> Reporter: Stamatis Zampetakis
> Priority: Major
>
> The problem was observed due to the failure of
> DruidAdapterIT#testFilterTimestamp.
> {code:sql}
> select count(*) as c
> from "foodmart"
> where extract(year from "timestamp") = 1997
> and extract(month from "timestamp") in (4, 6)
> {code}
> +Expected+
> {noformat}
> EnumerableInterpreter
> DruidQuery(table=[[foodmart, foodmart]],
> intervals=[[1997-04-01T00:00:00.000Z/1997-05-01T00:00:00.000Z,
> 1997-06-01T00:00:00.000Z/1997-07-01T00:00:00.000Z]], projects=[[0]],
> groups=[{}], aggs=[[COUNT()]])
> {noformat}
> +Actual+
> {noformat}
> EnumerableInterpreter
> DruidQuery(table=[[foodmart, foodmart]],
> intervals=[[1900-01-09T00:00:00.000Z/2992-01-10T00:00:00.000Z]],
> filter=[AND(=(EXTRACT(FLAG(YEAR), $0), 1997), OR(=(EXTRACT(FLAG(MONTH), $0),
> 4), =(EXTRACT(FLAG(MONTH), $0), 6)))], groups=[{}], aggs=[[COUNT()]])
> {noformat}
> Observe that the actual plan has an interval that basically touches all data
> so in most cases it is less efficient than the expected one.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
