Re: Review request.

Thanks Julian for looking into this. I have updated the JIRA with corresponding details. On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 8:27 PM Julian Hyde wrote: > Please respond to my comments in Jira. It's difficult to review a PR > until we know what problem it is fixing. > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 5:53 PM

Re: Review request.

Please respond to my comments in Jira. It's difficult to review a PR until we know what problem it is fixing. On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 5:53 PM Hanumath Maduri wrote: > > Hello Developers, > > I've had a pull request (https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/3640) open > for review over the past few

Review request.

Hello Developers, I've had a pull request (https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/3640) open for review over the past few weeks. I want to extend my gratitude to Mihai and Ruben for their thorough review and valuable feedback. I've addressed all the comments provided. This fix is crucial for our

Review request

Hello all, I have 9 open PR in the queue which could use some reviews. I am hoping to land them in the next Calcite release. Some of them have been reviewed, and I have (hopefully) addressed the comments, but I haven't received approvals or new reviews. Since the PR queue moves so fast and is

Re: PR 3495 (Make single-row rels unique) Review Request

o that. >> >> Mihai >> >> From: Paul Jackson >> Sent: Monday, January 8, 2024 7:06 AM >> To: dev@calcite.apache.org >> Subject: Re: PR 3495 (Make single-row rels unique) Review Request >> >> Is there

Re: PR 3495 (Make single-row rels unique) Review Request

Budiu wrote: > > CI failed, so perhaps you can look into that. > > Mihai > > From: Paul Jackson > Sent: Monday, January 8, 2024 7:06 AM > To: dev@calcite.apache.org > Subject: Re: PR 3495 (Make single-row rels unique) Review Request

Re: PR 3495 (Make single-row rels unique) Review Request

e: PR 3495 (Make single-row rels unique) Review Request > > Is there anything else to do for this PR? > > * https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/3495 > * https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-6044 > > Thanks, > -Paul > > > > On Nov 16, 2023

Re: PR 3495 (Make single-row rels unique) Review Request

CI failed, so perhaps you can look into that. Mihai From: Paul Jackson Sent: Monday, January 8, 2024 7:06 AM To: dev@calcite.apache.org Subject: Re: PR 3495 (Make single-row rels unique) Review Request Is there anything else to do for this PR? * https

Re: PR 3495 (Make single-row rels unique) Review Request

Is there anything else to do for this PR? * https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/3495 * https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-6044 Thanks, -Paul > On Nov 16, 2023, at 7:51 AM, Paul Jackson > wrote: > > This PR updates org.apache.calcite.rel.metadata areColumnsUnique, >

Re: PR 3495 (Make single-row rels unique) Review Request

It depends on your client. Different clients have a different notion of paragraph. Safest thing is to compose in plain text mode. Failing that, compose in rich text mode with the knowledge that it will be converted to plain text mode. Use ' * ' for bullet points, '>' for quoted text, and

Re: PR 3495 (Make single-row rels unique) Review Request

Thanks. Is there a trick to sending e-mails to this list so that formatting is retained? Experimenting with my client's plain-text mode: https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/3495 https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/CALCITE/issues/CALCITE-6044 Copy/pasting your links: * 

Re: PR 3495 (Make single-row rels unique) Review Request

These links are easier: * https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/3495 * https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-6044 > On Nov 16, 2023, at 7:51 AM, Paul Jackson > wrote: > > This PR updates org.apache.calcite.rel.metadata areColumnsUnique, > getUniqueKeys, and getPredicates methods to

PR 3495 (Make single-row rels unique) Review Request

This PR updates org.apache.calcite.rel.metadata areColumnsUnique, getUniqueKeys, and getPredicates methods to account for relations that produce at most a single row: Sort (due to limit), Aggregate (due to no group by), Values (due to having a single row), and Join (when joining with one of the

Re: PR3502(lambda expressions) Review Request

I have reviewed. It looks good, and I’m sure we can get this in before 1.37. Let’s discuss further on the PR and in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-3679. > On Nov 13, 2023, at 7:08 PM, Hongyu Guo wrote: > > Hi Julian, > > Thanks for your explanation. > I think we can add

Re: PR3502(lambda expressions) Review Request

Hi Julian, Thanks for your explanation. I think we can add support for lambda expressions in CTE syntax later, for example: ``` with f as (x, y) -> x + y select f(c1, c2) from t; ``` Another thing, I provided the wrong PR link, and the correct one should be: [1]

Re: PR3502(lambda expressions) Review Request

Thank you. I’ll take a look. For what it's worth, I take issue the people (not you - they are in Spark and/or Presto) who originally describe this feature as ‘lambdas’, ‘higher-order functions’ or ‘function values’. The lambdas can only be used within that particular function call, not passed

PR3502(lambda expressions) Review Request

Hi devs, I have opened a PR regarding lambda expressions, Calcite will support lambda expressions like `(a, b) - > a+ b` in function parameters if this PR is merged. This PR includes the following: - Parse, validation, SqlToRel and RelToSql for lambda expressions. - Execution of higher-order

Review Request for CALCITE-5863/5876

Hello, I have a PR for CALCITE-5863 and CALCITE-5876 regarding wrong validation for WINDOW functions: https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/3325 If someone can review it I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you, Itiel

Re: PR CALCITE-6040/CALCITE-5918 Review Request

thanks Tanner for reviewing it! I will fix the comments/problems ASAP. Best Regards, Ran Tao Tanner Clary 于2023年10月13日周五 00:10写道： > I added some comments and questions to pull #3459, thanks for > the contributions! > > Tanner > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 8:27 AM Ran Tao wrote: > > > Hi

Re: PR CALCITE-6040/CALCITE-5918 Review Request

I added some comments and questions to pull #3459, thanks for the contributions! Tanner On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 8:27 AM Ran Tao wrote: > Hi community, > > I have 2 issues with MAP constructor/function. > > In CALCITE-6040, I have fixed a bug of the calcite map constructor when the > map meets

PR CALCITE-6040/CALCITE-5918 Review Request

Hi community, I have 2 issues with MAP constructor/function. In CALCITE-6040, I have fixed a bug of the calcite map constructor when the map meets null key/values in some special cases. In CALCITE-5918, I have added a basic Spark MAP function (need additional +1 review). If someone has time,

Re: PR CALCITE-5825 and CALCITE-5826 Review Request

Thanks LakeShen for the review, currently we finish the first round review, then need committers to help review. If someone has time to review these PRs, I would appreciate it very much. LakeShen 于2023年9月21日周四 00:31写道： > Thank you for opening this PR, I left a couple of comments. > > Best, >

Re: PR CALCITE-5918 Review Request

Hi Ran, Nice work! I left a couple of comments. Best, Hongyu Guo Ran Tao 于2023年10月8日周日 11:36写道： > Hi community, > > In CALCITE-5918[1], I have added a Map function (Spark Library). > > We have supported a lot of array/map functions (Spark) in recent versions > of calcite, > and it seems that

PR CALCITE-5918 Review Request

Hi community, In CALCITE-5918[1], I have added a Map function (Spark Library). We have supported a lot of array/map functions (Spark) in recent versions of calcite, and it seems that only the most basic MAP function is left. The PR links is: https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/3459 If

PR CALCITE-6011 and CALCITE-6031 Review Request

Hi community, In CALCITE-6011,I have added a planner rule to push the Filter past a Window . In CALCITE-6031,I have added a planner rule to push the Filter past a Sample . If someone has time,please help me to review this PR,I would appreciate it very much. 1. CALCITE-6011,JIRA link:

Re: PR CALCITE-6022 Review Request

Looks good to me. Nice work. > On Sep 26, 2023, at 8:16 PM, Hongyu Guo wrote: > > Hi devs, > > I have submitted PR[1] to support a new DDL syntax: "CREATE TABLE LIKE". > > "CREATE TABLE LIKE" will define a new table using definition of an existing > table, > and it is optional to preserve

PR CALCITE-6022 Review Request

Hi devs, I have submitted PR[1] to support a new DDL syntax: "CREATE TABLE LIKE". "CREATE TABLE LIKE" will define a new table using definition of an existing table, and it is optional to preserve the generated column information and expression default values of the original table. More details

Re: PR CALCITE-6008 Review Request

Hi Jiabao, Thanks for opening this PR, I left a couple of comments. Best, Tanner On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 3:55 AM Jiabao Sun wrote: > Hi community, > > I have submitted a PR with CALCITE-6008 > to correct ARRAY_AGG function's return type. > > If someone has time, please help me to review the

PR CALCITE-6008 Review Request

Hi community, I have submitted a PR with CALCITE-6008 to correct ARRAY_AGG function's return type. If someone has time, please help me to review the PR, I would appreciate it very much. 1.CALCITE-6008: Jira: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-6008 PR:

PR CALCITE-6008 Review Request

Hi community, I have submitted a PR with CALCITE-6008 to correct ARRAY_AGG function's return type. If someone has time, please help me to review the PR, I would appreciate it very much. 1.CALCITE-6008: Jira: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-6008 PR:

Re: PR CALCITE-5825 and CALCITE-5826 Review Request

Thank you for opening this PR, I left a couple of comments. Best, LakeShen Runkang He 于2023年9月20日周三 08:29写道： > Hi community, I have submitted two PRs with CALCITE-5825 and CALCITE-5826 > to add some useful string functions. > > In CALCITE-5825, I have added the URL_ENCODE and URL_DECODE

PR CALCITE-5825 and CALCITE-5826 Review Request

Hi community, I have submitted two PRs with CALCITE-5825 and CALCITE-5826 to add some useful string functions. In CALCITE-5825, I have added the URL_ENCODE and URL_DECODE function, which is enabled in Spark library. In CALCITE-5826, I have added the FIND_IN_SET function, which is enabled in Hive

Re: PR CALCITE-5948 Review Request

hi, devs. I have opened a ticket https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-5948 to solve explicit casting in array/map. Tanner helped me review part of it, looking forward to +1 additional review. thanks. Best Regards, Ran Tao Ran Tao 于2023年9月1日周五 23:53写道： > Hi, Tanner. I have solved

PR CALCITE-5994 and CALCITE-5971 Review Request

Hi community, I have submited two prs with CALCITE-5971 and CALCITE-5994. In CALCITE-5971,I have added a rule to rewrite the bernoulli sample as Filter,the logic is same as trino/presto’s ImplementBernoulliSampleAsFilter rule. In CALCITE-5994,I have added a rule to remove the redundant order by

Re: PR CALCITE-5948 Review Request

Hi, Tanner. I have solved some comments. thanks for reviewing. Best Regards, Ran Tao Tanner Clary 于2023年8月31日周四 23:40写道： > Hi Ran Tao, > > Thank you for opening this PR, I tried to leave a couple of suggestions. > > Best, > Tanner Clary > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 4:30 AM Ran Tao wrote: > >

Re: PR CALCITE-5948 Review Request

Hi Ran Tao, Thank you for opening this PR, I tried to leave a couple of suggestions. Best, Tanner Clary On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 4:30 AM Ran Tao wrote: > Hi, devs. > > can anyone help to review this? thanks. > > > Best Regards, > Ran Tao > > > Ran Tao 于2023年8月28日周一 13:07写道： > > > Hi devs, >

Re: PR CALCITE-5948 Review Request

Hi, devs. can anyone help to review this? thanks. Best Regards, Ran Tao Ran Tao 于2023年8月28日周一 13:07写道： > Hi devs, > > I opened a ticket CALCITE-5948[1] to solved the questions below. > > If we call elements cast in array or map functions such as `array(1, > cast(2 as tinyint))` or `map[1,

PR CALCITE-5948 Review Request

Hi devs, I opened a ticket CALCITE-5948[1] to solved the questions below. If we call elements cast in array or map functions such as `array(1, cast(2 as tinyint))` or `map[1, 1, 2, cast(2 as smallint)]` it will be success in validation but failed in runtime with exception. Actually we need a

Re: PR CALCITE-5889 Review Request

I left a couple of minor comments, thanks for the pull request! -Tanner On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 6:23 PM Runkang He wrote: > I would like to review it. Thanks for your contribution. > > LakeShen 于2023年8月27日周日 21:01写道： > > > Hi community, > > > > In CALCITE-5889,I have added a rule to rewrite

Re: PR CALCITE-5889 Review Request

I would like to review it. Thanks for your contribution. LakeShen 于2023年8月27日周日 21:01写道： > Hi community, > > In CALCITE-5889,I have added a rule to rewrite the Minus to UNION ALL + > Aggregate + Filter,now the PR is ready. > > If someone has time,please help me to review this PR,I would

PR CALCITE-5889 Review Request

Hi community, In CALCITE-5889,I have added a rule to rewrite the Minus to UNION ALL + Aggregate + Filter,now the PR is ready. If someone has time,please help me to review this PR,I would appreciate it very much. 1. The JIRA link:https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-5889 2. The

Re: PR CALCITE-5909/5920 Review Request

I'm reviewing it, good work Ran! Ran Tao 于2023年8月21日周一 23:48写道： > calcite SqlParserTest#keywords test cases failed and it can't be detected > at gradle build process(not covered by build pipeline). It will cause the > gap of keywords to become larger and even cause wrong usage. > > This PR

PR CALCITE-5909/5920 Review Request

calcite SqlParserTest#keywords test cases failed and it can't be detected at gradle build process(not covered by build pipeline). It will cause the gap of keywords to become larger and even cause wrong usage. This PR https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/3366 fix it and covered it by build

PR CALCITE-5870 Review Request

Hi community, CALCITE-5870 will allow literals like DECIMAL '12.3' (consistent with Postgres),and now the PR is ready.After CALCITE-5870,the following SQL is allowed and behaves the same as PG. -- result is 10.9select decimal '9.9' + 1 JIRA link:

RE: Re: PR CALCITE-5681 Review Request

Thank you for your encouragement and guidance, which has been very helpful to me! For your first question, I renamed Privilege to AuthCommand. Secondly, I have modified most of the CalcitePrincipal to Principal to enhance the extensibility of the code, and propose a loadingCache to reduce the

Re: PR CALCITE-5681 Review Request

I took a very quick look. This looks very well structured (with nice abstractions Principal, Grant and Revoke commands, and I like how you have made the parser extensible). This is definitely worth reviewing and getting to complation. * Terminology. You have made Grant and Revoke sub-classes

PR CALCITE-5681 Review Request

Hi, community! I’ve submitted a PR for "supporting authorization via GRANT and REVOKE DDL commands.” In this PR, I implemented basic access control for calcite by adding GRANT and REVOKE syntax. JIRA case link: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-5816 Github PR link:

PR CALCITE-5681 Review Request

Hi, community! I’ve submitted a PR for supporting authorization via GRANT and REVOKE DDL commands. JIRA case link: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-5816 Github PR link: https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/3284 Can someone make a review? Thank you! Best Hongyu Guo

Re: PR 3258 Review Request

Nice work. (The hardest thing we do, as software engineers, is to make our work easy for others to understand. The fact that several databases have functions called CONCAT, with subtly different behaviors, made this task particularly challenging. You produced a solution that makes the

PR 3258 Review Request

Hi, community. I’ve submitted a PR for applying two different NULL semantics for CONCAT function, because this function now returns NULL when any of the arguments is NULL, however Postgresql and MSSQL have different behavior(they treat NULL as empty string). BTW, CONCAT enabled in Oracle(we

[REVIEW REQUEST]: Review Request for CALCITE-5676

Hello all, I have a PR related to `MEASURE` type metadata in need of a review. This change should ensure that schema metadata and result set metadata agree on DATA_TYPE and TYPE_NAME for MEASURE field types. https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/3179 Thank you! Best, -- TJ

Review Request for CALCITE-5671

Hello all, I submitted CALCITE-5671 yesterday and wanted to request review. It is a minor PR which adds an option to disable SSL Cert Validation for the ES Adapter. Thanks! -- C https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/3174

Re: [REVIEW REQUEST] CALCITE-5160 and CALCITE-5403

I would like to participate in the review of these two PRs Best, Dan Zou > 2023年3月6日 23:03，Dmitry Sysolyatin 写道： > > Hello, > I would like to request review for the following tickets: > > CALCITE-5160: ANY/SOME, ALL operators should support collection expressions > [1] > CALCITE-5403:

[REVIEW REQUEST] CALCITE-5160 and CALCITE-5403

Hello, I would like to request review for the following tickets: CALCITE-5160: ANY/SOME, ALL operators should support collection expressions [1] CALCITE-5403: PostgreSQL dialect should support SET, RESET, BEGIN, SHOW, ROLLBACK, COMMIT [2] [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-5160

[Review request] CALCITE-5394 and CALCITE-5395

Hi all, I fixed two bugs in RelToSql: CALCITE-5394[1] and CALCITE-5395[2]. Their code changes are very small, so it won't cost you too much time to review. Would anyone please review them? Thanks very much. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-5394 [2]

[REVIEW REQUEST] [CALCITE-5279] Fix asymmetric keyword not supported by Firebolt

Hi, I would like to request a PR review for CALCITE-5279, which fixes the Firebolt dialect (as it does not support the 'asymmetric' keyword). PR: https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/2904 Ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-5279 Thank you ! Aymeric

[REVIEW REQUEST] CALCITE-5230 PERCENTILE_DISC return type derivation

Hello, I would like to request review for CALCITE-5230, which fixes the return type derivation of PERCENTILE_DISC. PR: https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/2868 Ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-5230 Thanks!

Re: [REVIEW REQUEST] CALCITE-5253 NATURAL JOIN erroneous validation.

Hi Evgeny, thanks for submitting the patch, I have taken a look and left some comments, but I think that the PR is overall in good shape. Best regards, Alessandro On Fri, 30 Sept 2022 at 09:22, stanilovsky evgeny < estanilovs...@gridgain.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to request a review

[REVIEW REQUEST] CALCITE-5253 NATURAL JOIN erroneous validation.

Hi, I would like to request a review for CALCITE-5253, pr [1], it fixes partially erroneous natural join validaton logic. Thanks ! [1] https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/2889 [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-5253

[REVIEW REQUEST] CALCITE-5240 (MaterializedViewRule enhancement)

Hi, I would like to request a review for CALCITE-5240, it modifies MaterializedViewRule so that views that do a rollup (for eg a group by on a datetime column floored to day) can be used when a query contains a range predicate on the same column. At my company we used calcite to develop a query

Re: Review request: Babel parser doesn't parse IF(condition, then, else) statements

Jiajun, thanks for your contribution, I'll review this. Jiajun Xie 于2022年8月5日周五 10:55写道： > `IF(condition, then, else)` is a common expression, babel parser failed > because CALCITE-3946 put `IF` into the keywords list. > > I added it to reservedFunctionNames, here is PR: >

Review request: Babel parser doesn't parse IF(condition, then, else) statements

`IF(condition, then, else)` is a common expression, babel parser failed because CALCITE-3946 put `IF` into the keywords list. I added it to reservedFunctionNames, here is PR: https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/2835

Re: PR Review Request

I completely agree with Julian. The problem cannot be solved unless we start investing more time in the project in the ways he already described. What I outlined previously is an attempt to mitigate the current situation, not something that can solve the problem for good. Nevertheless, to push

Review request: Babel parser doesn't parse IF(condition, then, else) statement

Babel parser doesn't parse IF(condition, then, else) statement because babel puts `IF` into the keyword set. I put `IF` into the reserved function name set to fix the issue: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-4802 Welcome to comment. Here is PR:

Re: PR Review Request

+1 to Stamatis’ idea. It won’t make things worse. :) But to repeat what I said earlier. We need existing committers to pull their weight. If necessary, committers need to talk to their managers and get time allocated to contribute to “housekeeping”. One important kind of housekeeping is

Re: PR Review Request

+1 on Stamatis' idea, I think it could help with the current situation of lack of reviewers. Best, Ruben On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 12:56 PM Charles Givre wrote: > Hello all, > FWIW, If a committer/reviewer shortage is the issue, I'd second Stamatis's > recommendation. > Best, > -- C > > > On

Re: PR Review Request

Hello all, FWIW, If a committer/reviewer shortage is the issue, I'd second Stamatis's recommendation. Best, -- C > On Jun 23, 2022, at 7:02 AM, Stamatis Zampetakis wrote: > > Hi all, > > How about granting Calcite committership to people who are already ASF > committers (in other projects)

Re: PR Review Request

Hi all, How about granting Calcite committership to people who are already ASF committers (in other projects) and they have a proven record of working with Calcite? Usually the PMC invites people to become committers to the project after having a few successful code contributions in

Re: PR Review Request

Hi everyone, This is an awesome discussion to improve collaborating between different projects. Thanks Julian, Jacques, Austin, Martijn, Timo's effort to make it happen. Best, Jing Zhang Martijn Visser 于2022年6月23日周四 01:43写道： > Hi Jacques, Julian, Austin and everyone else, > > Thank you very

Re: PR Review Request

Hi Jacques, Julian, Austin and everyone else, Thank you very much for sharing all your experiences and providing really valuable input. I'll definitely relay this back to the original discussion thread in the Flink community. Part of bringing this information back to the Flink community is also

Re: PR Review Request

Hi everyone, This is a really great discussion. Thanks for starting it Martijn and your input Jacques! I have been fighting against forking Calcite in Flink for years already. Even when merging forks of Flink that transitively forked Calcite, in the end we were able to resolve conflicts /

Re: PR Review Request

As the PMC for Apache Drill, I'd echo everyone's comments here Don't fork. Don't do it. Apache Drill forked Calcite several years ago which Calcite was on version 1.20 or 1.21. While this meant that some bugs were easily fixed, what it also meant that as our fork diverged from "regular"

Re: PR Review Request

Martijn: I'd interpret Julian's response as welcoming you to contribute to the Calcite :-) Sounds like there is concretely room for: * reviewing ( ex: test, comment in PR, but not actually merge -- might make it easier/quicker for the current committers to then allow them to address other/more

Re: PR Review Request

Please don’t fork Calcite. Calcite suffers from the tragedy of the commons. Unlike many open source data projects, there is no commercial project that directly maps to Calcite (even though Calcite is an essential part of many projects). As a result no engineers work full-time on Calcite. It

Re: PR Review Request

Martijn, thanks for sharing that thread in the Flink community. I'm someone who has forked Calcite twice: once in Apache Drill and again in Dremio. In both cases, it was all about trading short term benefits against long term costs. In both cases, I think the net amount of work was probably 5x as

Re: PR Review Request

Thanks Julian and Austin! Any reply to kick-off some sort of discussion is worthwhile :D I definitely know the feeling of having more PRs open then you would like, looking at https://github.com/apache/flink/pulls :) There have been discussions in the Flink community about forking Calcite [1]. My

Re: PR Review Request

>From the peanut gallery :-) --> Wow; yes, lots of open PRs. https://github.com/apache/calcite/pulls How can individuals from the Flink [sub-]community, and/or more general calcite community help lighten this load? Is there much weight given to reviews from non-committers; how to increase the

Re: PR Review Request

Martijn, Since you requested a reply, I am replying. To answer your question, I don’t know of a way to move this topic forward. We have more PRs than people to review them. Julian > On Jun 19, 2022, at 11:58 PM, Martijn Visser wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > I just wanted to reach out to the

Re: PR Review Request

Hi everyone, I just wanted to reach out to the Calcite community once more on this topic since no reply was received. Would be great if someone could get back to us. Best regards, Martijn Op wo 8 jun. 2022 om 11:24 schreef Martijn Visser : > Hi everyone, > > I would like to follow-up on this

Re: PR Review Request

Hi everyone, I would like to follow-up on this email that was sent by Jing. So far, no progress has been made, despite reaching out to the mailing list, the original Jira ticket and reaching out to people directly. Is there a way that we can move this PR/topic forward? For context, in Apache

Review request PR#2623

Hello, community! I would like to ask for your help with the review of this PR [1]. It’s been a while since I worked on this for the last time, but now I’m really looking forward to driving this till the end. This change addresses the issue described in CALCITE-4913 [2]. Basically, I want the

Review request

Hi! Can you someone review those PRs: https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/2789 https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/2804 Thanks

Re: Review Request: CALCITE-5064

I will have another look at CALCITE-4992 in the following days. Best, Stamatis On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 7:45 AM James Turton wrote: > Excuse me freeloading on this thread but another PR that originated from > our end (Drill) and is once again ready for review is CALCITE-4992 >

Re: Review Request: CALCITE-5064

Excuse me freeloading on this thread but another PR that originated from our end (Drill) and is once again ready for review is CALCITE-4992 (https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/2698). Thanks James On 2022/03/27 16:20, Charles Givre wrote: Hello Calcite Devs, I'd like to request a review

Review Request: CALCITE-5064

Hello Calcite Devs, I'd like to request a review for CALCITE-5064 (https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/2752 ) which is a minor bug fix that prevents the correct dialect from being selected for BigQuery. Thanks! -- C

[REVIEW REQUEST]: Review Request for CALCITE-4512

Hi, community CALCITE-4512 has revealed some GROUP BY alias expanding problems and I submitted a PR-2745 to solve the problem that only simple identifier and GROUPING SETS top level expressions

Review Request: PR for ISSUE-5000

Hi community, Anyone could help to review the pr. ISSUE: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-5000 PR: https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/2714 This Jira aims to reduce aggregate functions, when arg of agg-call is in the aggregate's group. Example: -- origin sql select max(c1) from

Re: [REVIEW REQUEST]: Review Request for CALCITE-4987

Hi community, This is a continuous review request for CALCITE-4987, I think it's helpful for generating valid ORDER BY clause on various engine, and federated queries will benefit from it, hence I'm honestly hoping this change will be merged soon. Yanjing Wang 于2022年1月18日周二 19:56写道： >

PR Review Request

Hi community, My apologies for interrupting. Anyone could help to review the pr https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/2606? Thanks a lot. CALCITE-4865 is the first sub-task of CALCITE-4864. This Jira aims to extend existing Table function in order to support Polymorphic Table Function which is

[REVIEW REQUEST]: Review Request for CALCITE-4987

Hi community, I'd like to request a review on CALCITE-4987( https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/2693), which also fixes CALCITE-2552. After this fix, the RelToSqlConverter will generate ORDER BY clause by dialect's conformance, and prefer ORDER BY ordinal rather alias when both is supported.

[CALCITE-4972]: Review request + first time intro

Hello Calcite community, Taking the opportunity here to do an intro as a first time prospective contributor! I'm Mark, a data engineer from the northeastern US. I've been a user of Calcite's query parsing and relational algebra generation capabilities for several months but only just recently

[REVIEW REQUEST]: Review Request for CALCITE-4901

Hi community, I request a review on CALCITE-4901( https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/2665), which fix the RelToSqlConverterTest using RelRoot.rel rather RelRoot.project(), and that the Project shouldn't wrap a select for Sort.

[REVIEW REQUEST]: Review Request for CALCITE-4968

Hello all, I'd like to kindly request a code review on CALCITE-4968 (https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/2669 ), which is a relatively minor bug fix for MSSQL queries. Thanks and Happy New Year! -- C

PR review request

Hi community, Please help review the pr https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/2606, thanks a lot. CALCITE-4865 is the first sub-task of CALCITE-4864. This Jira aims to extend existing Table function in order to support Polymorphic Table Function which is introduced as the part of ANSI SQL 2016.

PR review request (CALCITE-4888)

Hi community, Currently, there is a minor inconsistent behavior in `RexBuilder#makeIn`. It does not take `RelDataTypeSystem.shouldConvertRaggedUnionTypesToVarying()` into consideration. I guess it's reasonable if `shouldConvertRaggedUnionTypesToVarying` is true, we should use less restrictive

PR review request (CALCITE-4865)

Hi community, CALCITE-4865 is first subtask of CALCITE-4864. This Jira aims to extend existed Table function in order to support Polymorphic Table Function which is introduced as the part of ANSI SQL 2016. Please help review the pr, it would be very appreciated. Thanks a lot. The brief change

PR review request(CALCITE-4868)

Hi team, This PR is about supporting sorting aggregation results in Elasticsearch Adapter, please help review it in your free time. Thanks a lot! What’s more, the git workflow shows “First-time contributors need a maintainer to approve running workflows”, awaiting approval?

Re: Review request: CALCITE-4818 (AggregateExpandDistinctAggregatesRule must infer correct data type for top aggregate calls)

Hi Calcite team, Gently reminder about review / merge the patch for  CALCITE-4818 [1] [1]. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-4818 On 15.10.2021 15:16, Taras Ledkov wrote: Hi, Gently reminder about review. On 04.10.2021 20:30, Taras Ledkov wrote: Hi, Please review the patch for

Re: CALCITE-4833 review request.

As I said in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-4833 , the PR does not solve the whole problem, in fact solves only a very special case of the problem, and therefore we should not accept it. Bug 4833 is valid. I’m sure that there

Re: CALCITE-4833 review request.

Hi calciters ! Look [1] introduces "Support SELECT without FROM syntax" such syntax can be used with join queries, i.e. SELECT t1.empid FROM emps t1 LEFT JOIN emps t2 ON (SELECT t2.empid)<=100 Can anyone review fix or reject it, or reject this lexical construction at all, thus i can close

  1   2   >