Mailing-List: contact dev-help@drill.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@drill.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="===============3546579138830391114=="
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Review Request 28496: DRILL-1779: Add unix_timestamp function
From: "Venkata krishnan Sowrirajan" <vsowrirajan@maprtech.com>
To: "Mehant Baid" <baid.mehant@gmail.com>
Cc: "drill" <drill-dev@incubator.apache.org>,
 "Venkata krishnan Sowrirajan" <vsowrirajan@maprtech.com>,
 "Kannan Rajah" <krajah@maprtech.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 18:45:56 -0000
Message-ID: <20141201184556.29131.68935@reviews.apache.org>
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Sender: "Venkata krishnan Sowrirajan" <noreply@reviews.apache.org>
References: <20141129025859.15977.1948@reviews.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <20141129025859.15977.1948@reviews.apache.org>
Reply-To: "Venkata krishnan Sowrirajan" <vsowrirajan@maprtech.com>

--===============3546579138830391114==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


> On Nov. 29, 2014, 2:58 a.m., Kannan Rajah wrote:
> > exec/java-exec/src/main/java/org/apache/drill/exec/expr/fn/impl/DateTypeFunctions.java, line 484
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/28496/diff/2/?file=777319#file777319line484>
> >
> >     Why we do need to create formatter when it is not used? Please take a look at this commit for the fix that I had made. It is returning milliseconds by mistake, so ignore that part.

Yeah, you are right. This is not required here. Copy/paste mistake.


> On Nov. 29, 2014, 2:58 a.m., Kannan Rajah wrote:
> > exec/java-exec/src/main/java/org/apache/drill/exec/expr/fn/impl/DateTypeFunctions.java, line 508
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/28496/diff/2/?file=777319#file777319line508>
> >
> >     Curious to know how we will hit this case since we have an overloaded function that does not take any args.

Yeah, this is also not required, I think. As we will not hit this condition for the reason you mentioned above.


> On Nov. 29, 2014, 2:58 a.m., Kannan Rajah wrote:
> > exec/java-exec/src/main/java/org/apache/drill/exec/expr/fn/impl/DateTypeFunctions.java, line 489
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/28496/diff/2/?file=777319#file777319line489>
> >
> >     Can we not just use the queryStartDate instead of creating a new date instance?

If I am not wrong, is this the fragment's queryStartTime("incoming.getContext().getQueryStartTime()")? Like this instead of creating an instance of Date.


- Venkata krishnan


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/28496/#review63276
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Nov. 27, 2014, 8:16 a.m., Venkata krishnan Sowrirajan wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/28496/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Nov. 27, 2014, 8:16 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for drill and Mehant Baid.
> 
> 
> Repository: drill-git
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Added functionality for unix_timestamp() similar to MySQL
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   exec/java-exec/src/main/java/org/apache/drill/exec/expr/fn/impl/DateTypeFunctions.java f063466 
>   exec/java-exec/src/test/java/org/apache/drill/exec/fn/impl/TestDateFunctions.java 1ecae19 
>   exec/java-exec/src/test/resources/functions/date/to_unixtimestamp_for_date.json PRE-CREATION 
>   exec/java-exec/src/test/resources/functions/date/to_unixtimestamp_for_date_with_pattern.json PRE-CREATION 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/28496/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Added testcases
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Venkata krishnan Sowrirajan
> 
>


--===============3546579138830391114==--