I will add explicit casts for these cases. Thanks for the suggestions, Rahul
On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 2:12 AM, Jinfeng Ni <j...@apache.org> wrote: > The error would encounter when IN clause is rewritten into Join, and > planner chooses to use distributed join (involves a Hash Exchange). For > distributed join, when two join keys do not have same types, only certain > type of implicit cast will be allowed. In Khurram's case, I think the > query is not using hash-distributed join method, and hence did not hit this > error. > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Khurram Faraaz <kfar...@mapr.com> wrote: > > > I tried the below query using data from your query from the IN clause (as > > is), I didn't see an error/Exception on sqlline, I am on Drill 1.11.0 > > > > > > 0: jdbc:drill:schema=dfs.tmp> select * from (values(1376764200000)) WHERE > > EXPR$0 IN (1376677800000, 1376764200000, 1376850600000, 1377023400000, > > 1377282600000, 1377369000000, 1377455400000, 1377887400000, > 1377973800000, > > 1379097000000, 1379183400000, 1379269800000, 1379701800000, > 1379788200000, > > 1380306600000, 1380393000000, 1380479400000, 1380911400000, > 1380997800000); > > +----------------+ > > | EXPR$0 | > > +----------------+ > > | 1376764200000 | > > +----------------+ > > 1 row selected (0.509 seconds) > > > > Thanks, > > Khurram > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Kunal Khatua <kkha...@mapr.com> > > Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 11:00:03 PM > > To: user@drill.apache.org > > Subject: RE: Error when timestamp IN clause contains more elements > > > > This works for 19 elements because the IN clause will do a filter > pushdown > > to the source for up to 19 elements. 20 or more... it resorts to using a > > JOIN, in which case it finds data type mismatch. > > > > It is a good practice (for readability purposes) to do casts in such > cases. > > > > Alternatively (not recommended in IMO) is to raise the threshold for the > > property "in_subquery_threshold" in sys.options from 20 to a higher > value. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Rahul Raj [mailto:rahul....@option3consulting.com] > > Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 7:56 AM > > To: user@drill.apache.org > > Subject: Error when timestamp IN clause contains more elements > > > > I am getting the error below when there are more than 19 elements in the > IN > > clause: > > > > DrillRuntimeException: Join only supports implicit casts between 1. > > Numeric data 2. Varchar, Varbinary data 3. Date, Timestamp data Left > type: > > TIMESTAMP, Right type: BIGINT. Add explicit casts to avoid this error. > > > > However, query succeeds when IN clause contains one element less. Query > is > > > > SELECT > > `Date` > > , `COUNT`(`Date`) `COUNT_Date` > > , `COUNT`(`a`) `COUNT_a` > > FROM > > dfs.test.`latest` > > WHERE (`Date` IN (1376677800000, 1376764200000, 1376850600000, > > 1377023400000, 1377282600000, 1377369000000, 1377455400000, > 1377887400000, > > 1377973800000, 1379097000000, 1379183400000, 1379269800000, > 1379701800000, > > 1379788200000, 1380306600000, 1380393000000, 1380479400000, > 1380911400000, > > 1380997800000)) > > GROUP BY `Date` > > ORDER BY `Date` ASC, `COUNT_Date` ASC; > > > > > > Regards, > > Rahul > > > > -- > > **** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and > > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is > > addressed. If you are not the named addressee then you should not > > disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender > > immediately and delete this e-mail from your system.**** > > > -- **** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the named addressee then you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail from your system.****
