[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-31663?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Yuanjian Li updated SPARK-31663:
--------------------------------
Description:
Grouping sets with having clause returns the wrong result when the condition of
having contained conflicting naming. See the below example:
{code:java}
select sum(a) as b FROM VALUES (1, 10), (2, 20) AS T(a, b) group by GROUPING
SETS ((b), (a, b)) having b > 10{code}
The `b` in `having b > 10` should be resolved as `T.b` not `sum(a)`, so the
right result should be
{code:java}
+---+
| b|
+---+
| 2|
| 2|
+---+{code}
instead of an empty result.
The root cause is similar to SPARK-31519, it's caused by we parsed HAVING as
Filter(..., Agg(...)) and resolved these two parts in different rules. The CUBE
and ROLLUP have the same issue.
was:
Grouping sets with having clause returns the wrong result when the condition of
having contained conflicting naming. See the below example:
{quote}
select sum(a) as b FROM VALUES (1, 10), (2, 20) AS T(a, b) group by GROUPING
SETS ((b), (a, b)) having b > 10
{quote}
The `b` in `having b > 10` should be resolved as `T.b` not `sum(a)`, so the
right result should be
{quote}
+---+
| b|
+---+
| 2|
| 2|
+---+
{quote}
instead of an empty result.
The root cause is similar to SPARK-31519, it's caused by we parsed HAVING as
Filter(..., Agg(...)) and resolved these two parts in different rules. The CUBE
and ROLLUP have the same issue.
> Grouping sets with having clause returns the wrong result
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SPARK-31663
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-31663
> Project: Spark
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: SQL
> Affects Versions: 2.4.5, 3.0.0
> Reporter: Yuanjian Li
> Priority: Major
>
> Grouping sets with having clause returns the wrong result when the condition
> of having contained conflicting naming. See the below example:
> {code:java}
> select sum(a) as b FROM VALUES (1, 10), (2, 20) AS T(a, b) group by GROUPING
> SETS ((b), (a, b)) having b > 10{code}
> The `b` in `having b > 10` should be resolved as `T.b` not `sum(a)`, so the
> right result should be
> {code:java}
> +---+
> | b|
> +---+
> | 2|
> | 2|
> +---+{code}
> instead of an empty result.
> The root cause is similar to SPARK-31519, it's caused by we parsed HAVING as
> Filter(..., Agg(...)) and resolved these two parts in different rules. The
> CUBE and ROLLUP have the same issue.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@spark.apache.org
