Github user arina-ielchiieva commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/drill/pull/996
@HanumathRao please close the pull request.
---
Github user amansinha100 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/drill/pull/996
Merged in 7a2fc87ee20f706d85cb5c90cc441e6b44b71592. @HanumathRao pls
close the PR.
---
Github user arina-ielchiieva commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/drill/pull/996
@HanumathRao thanks for making the changes.
+1, LGTM.
---
Github user HanumathRao commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/drill/pull/996
@arina-ielchiieva Thank you for the review comments. I have modified the
code accordingly. Please let me know if anything needs to be changed.
---
Github user HanumathRao commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/drill/pull/996
@arina-ielchiieva I think this check shouldn't cause much of a performance
impact as it is in parser code and also it is checked right now by the DRILL's
custom overload of getTable. If this
Github user arina-ielchiieva commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/drill/pull/996
So does it mean that schema validation will be done twice: first in Drill
and then in Calcite? Will it influence query parsing performance?
---
Github user HanumathRao commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/drill/pull/996
@arina-ielchiieva Thank your for the comments. There is some work that went
into calcite to handle meaningful error messages. This is the checkin that has
those changes.
Github user arina-ielchiieva commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/drill/pull/996
Well, with the short-term solution I am afraid that eventually we'll forget
to revert it when Calcite checks take over and we'll be checking for schema
twice.
@HanumathRao before
Github user arina-ielchiieva commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/drill/pull/996
@paul-rogers thanks for approving pull request but actually before merging
these changes in Drill (since I am not still convinced we need them), I was
expecting @HanumathRao to do
