...@calcite.apache.org; Julian hydejh...@apache.org;
bupt_ljybupt_...@163.com
Date:Sunday, Dec 16, 2018 20:08
Subject:Re: Problems about subsets clause order for MATCH_RECOGNIZE
Hi Jiayi, I don't think it should any difference what is the order in the
SUBSET clause. The PATTERN clause specifies the definitive order
Sender:* Dawid Wysakowicz
> *Recipient:* dev; Julian
> Hyde; bupt_ljy
> *Date:* Sunday, Dec 16, 2018 20:08
> *Subject:* Re: Problems about subsets clause order for MATCH_RECOGNIZE
>
> Hi Jiayi,
>
> I don't think it should any difference what is the order in the SUBSET
> clau
if we don’t need the
“sorted”.
Best,
Jiayi Liao
Original Message
Sender:Dawid wysakowiczdwysakow...@apache.org
Recipient:dev...@calcite.apache.org; Julian hydejh...@apache.org;
bupt_ljybupt_...@163.com
Date:Sunday, Dec 16, 2018 20:08
Subject:Re: Problems about subsets clause order
Hi Jiayi,
I don't think it should any difference what is the order in the SUBSET
clause. The PATTERN clause specifies the definitive order of pattern
variables. SUBSET clause just groups them as a single entity you can
reference. Therefore LAST/FIRST/PREV/NEXT/AFTER MATCH etc. will take
into
I don’t understand MATCH_RECOGNIZE well enough to give an opinion. Is there a
query that gives different results on Oracle if you change the order of items
in SUBSET?
It seems that the parser preserves the order of items in the subset, but the
SqlToRelConverter does not, hence the line
Hi all,
It’s my first time to send emails to Calcite developers. It’s a really good
project and many projects benefit from it.
Now I’ve encountered a problem about the subsets for MATCH_RECOGNIZE in
thetestMatchRecognizeSubset1() testing. From the results, I can tell
that"subset stdn =
