korlov42 commented on PR #7150:
URL: https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/7150#issuecomment-3636895126
```
[RangeBounds [shouldComputeLower=true, lowerBound=1995-03-15,
lowerInclude=false, shouldComputeUpper=true, upperBound=null:DATE,
upperInclude=false]]
searchBounds: (<1995-03-15>..<null:DATE>)
VS
[RangeBounds [shouldComputeLower=true, lowerBound=null, lowerInclude=true,
shouldComputeUpper=true, upperBound=1998-09-02, upperInclude=true]]
searchBounds: [..<1998-09-02>]
```
I think, this confusion is result of ambiguity of the old representation.
In the first case, bound looks like `upperBound=null:DATE`. Mind `:DATE`
suffix, it means that bound exists, but represented by `NULL` literal of type
`DATE`. In the second case bound doesn't exist at all (`lowerBound=null`, the
whole bound is null).
And this is reflected in the new format:
* ` (<1995-03-15>..<null:DATE>)` -- bound exists (you can say it by presence
of diamonds `<>`), but represented by NULL literal
* `[..<1998-09-02>]` -- bound doesn't exist (no diamonds on one side).
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
