Github user gatorsmile commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/10678#discussion_r51352501
--- Diff:
sql/catalyst/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/catalyst/analysis/Analyzer.scala
---
@@ -521,38 +522,96 @@ class Analyzer(
*/
object ResolveSortReferences extends Rule[LogicalPlan] {
def apply(plan: LogicalPlan): LogicalPlan = plan resolveOperators {
- case s @ Sort(ordering, global, p @ Project(projectList, child))
- if !s.resolved && p.resolved =>
- val (newOrdering, missing) = resolveAndFindMissing(ordering, p,
child)
+ // Here, this rule only resolves the missing sort references if the
child is not Aggregate
+ // Another rule ResolveAggregateFunctions will resolve that case.
--- End diff --
@cloud-fan I kept the function implementation in the
`ResolveAggregateFunctions`, but I called the function in
`ResolveSortReferences`. Since the rule `ResolveAggregateFunctions` covers two
cases (`filter` and `sort`), I am afraid the code readers might feel confused
if we split them into two rules. This function call is public. I am not sure if
this way is appropriate?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: reviews-h...@spark.apache.org
