Strange, per my testing, we can do that:

0: jdbc:drill:zk=n1a:5181,n2a:5181,n3a:5181> select * from `hao/2015` where
dir0=1;
+------------+------------+
|  columns   |    dir0    |
+------------+------------+
| ["1","2","3"] | 1          |
+------------+------------+
1 row selected (0.098 seconds)
0: jdbc:drill:zk=n1a:5181,n2a:5181,n3a:5181> select * from `hao/2015` where
dir0>1;
+------------+------------+
|  columns   |    dir0    |
+------------+------------+
| ["1","2","3"] | 3          |
| ["1","2","3"] | 2          |
+------------+------------+
2 rows selected (0.18 seconds)

Thanks,
Hao

On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Tomer Shiran <[email protected]> wrote:

> The casting issue seems like a real bug. People want to do things like
> "dir0 > 2012"
>
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Andries Engelbrecht <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Thanks.
> >
> > It will be good for users to understand the specifics of directory
> pruning.
> >
> > As an additional note is is important to not cast the data typeof the dir
> > filter and to provide a string (i.e. dir0=‘2015’) for pruning to work
> > properly.
> > With dir0=2015 the query to works, but the directories are no pruned
> >
> > Similar if a view is created with columns for dir0, dir1, etc. the data
> > types should not be casted or converted, based on current observations.
> >
> > It may be good to make it a bit friendlier for a better user experience,
> > will file an enhancement request.
> >
> > —Andries
> >
> >
> > On Feb 3, 2015, at 5:35 PM, Aman Sinha <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, that's the expected behavior for now.  Directory pruning where
> only
> > > subdirectory is specified is logically equivalent to wildcard matching
> -
> > > '*/*/10'  which is not supported yet.  You could open an enhancement
> > > request.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Andries Engelbrecht <
> > > [email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Is it required for the directory pruning to work that a top down
> filter
> > of
> > >> directories be applied?
> > >>
> > >> My current observation is that for a directory structure as listed
> > below,
> > >> the pruning only works if the full tree is provided. If only a lower
> > level
> > >> directory is supplied in the filter condition Drill only uses it as a
> > >> filter.
> > >>
> > >> /2015
> > >>         /01
> > >>                /10
> > >>                /11
> > >>                /12
> > >>                /13
> > >>                /14
> > >>
> > >> select count(id) from `/foo` t where dir0='2015' and dir1='01' and
> > >> dir2='10'
> > >> Produces the correct pruning and query plan
> > >> 01-02            Project(id=[$3]): rowcount = 3670316.0, cumulative
> > cost =
> > >> {1.1010948E7 rows, 1.4681284E7 cpu, 0.0 io, 0.0 network, 0.0 memory},
> > id =
> > >> 28434
> > >> 01-03              Project(dir0=[$0], dir1=[$3], dir2=[$2], id=[$1]):
> > >> rowcount = 3670316.0, cumulative cost = {7340632.0 rows, 1.468128E7
> cpu,
> > >> 0.0 io, 0.0 network, 0.0 memory}, id = 28433
> > >> 01-04                Scan(groupscan=[EasyGroupScan
> [selectionRoot=/foo,
> > >> numFiles=24, columns=[`dir0`, `dir1`, `dir2`, `id`]
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> However
> > >> select count(id) from `/foo` t where dir2='10'
> > >> Produces full scan of all sub directories and only applies a filter
> > >> condition after the fact. Notice the numFiles between the 2, even
> > though it
> > >> lists columns in the base scan
> > >> 01-04                Filter(condition=[=($0, '10')]): rowcount =
> > >> 9423761.7, cumulative cost = {1.88475234E8 rows, 3.76950476E8 cpu, 0.0
> > io,
> > >> 0.0 network, 0.0 memory}, id = 27470
> > >> 01-05                  Project(dir2=[$1], id=[$0]): rowcount =
> > >> 6.2825078E7, cumulative cost = {1.25650156E8 rows, 1.25650164E8 cpu,
> 0.0
> > >> io, 0.0 network, 0.0 memory}, id = 27469
> > >> 01-06                    Scan(groupscan=[EasyGroupScan
> > >> [selectionRoot=/foo, numFiles=405, columns=[`dir2`, `id`]
> > >>
> > >> Any thoughts?
> > >>
> > >> Thanks
> > >>
> > >> —Andries
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to