[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-6301?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17823890#comment-17823890
]
Alessandro Solimando edited comment on CALCITE-6301 at 3/6/24 7:42 AM:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't this equivalent to say that "ENAME" is an alternative to the
"Must-filter-fields"?
In that case I think it's simpler to extend the syntax to provide multiple
"Must-filter-fields" lists, something like "[EMPNO, DEPTNO],[ENAME]" (a list of
lists, conceptually, where each list is an independent alternative).
>From your example it's not clear if multiple by-pass fields values would
>require to be there at the same time (very much like "Must-filter-fields"), or
>if any of them alone would do.
For instance, for Bypass-fields: [ENAME, EMPNO], would the following queries be
valid or not?
SELECT * FROM EMP WHERE ENAME = ’name’
SELECT * FROM EMP WHERE EMPNO = 1
In any case, the multiple "Must-filter-fields" syntax would allow to express
both pretty naturally.
You can even probably re-use the same machinery you coded for
"Must-filter-fields" more easily.
WDYT?
was (Author: asolimando):
Isn't this equivalent to say that "EMPNAME" is an alternative to the
"Must-filter-fields"?
In that case I think it's simpler to extend the syntax to provide multiple
"Must-filter-fields" lists, something like "[EMPNO, DEPTNO],[ENAME]" (a list of
lists, conceptually, where each list is an independent alternative).
>From your example it's not clear if multiple by-pass fields values would
>require to be there at the same time (very much like "Must-filter-fields"), or
>if any of them alone would do.
For instance, for Bypass-fields: [ENAME, EMPNO], would the following queries be
valid or not?
SELECT * FROM EMP WHERE ENAME = ’name’
SELECT * FROM EMP WHERE EMPNO = 1
In any case, the multiple "Must-filter-fields" syntax would allow to express
both pretty naturally.
You can even probably re-use the same machinery you coded for
"Must-filter-fields" more easily.
WDYT?
> Extend ‘Must-filter’ columns to support a conditional bypass list
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CALCITE-6301
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-6301
> Project: Calcite
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Oliver Lee
> Assignee: Oliver Lee
> Priority: Major
>
> In [CALCITE-6219] we introduced SemanticTable, where tables that implement
> this interface can define fields to be ‘must-filter’, and a query without
> those filters in any of its WHERE or HAVING clauses, it will throw a
> validation error.
>
> I would like to extend this functionality to support a by-pass list of fields
> such that if any field from this secondary list is present in a WHERE /
> HAVING clause, then the must-filter fields can be ignored and will not raise
> an exception if not filtered on.
>
> Ex.
>
> EMP table specifies the following:
> Must-filter-fields: [EMPNO, DEPTNO]
> Bypass-fields: [ENAME]
>
>
> SELECT * FROM EMP WHERE EMPNO = 1 and DEPTNO = 2 -> No error
> SELECT * FROM EMP WHERE EMPNO = 1 -> Error
> SELECT * FROM EMP WHERE EMPNO = 1 and ENAME = ’name’ -> No error
> SELECT * FROM EMP WHERE ENAME = ’name’ -> No error
>
>
>
> Again, special considerations are for handling
>
> * Joins
> * CTEs
> * Subqueries
>
>
> And a similar exhaustive suite of tests like the one for [CALCITE-6219]
> should be employed
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
