drill-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jason Altekruse (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Updated] (DRILL-2218) Constant folding rule not being used in plan where the constant expression is in the select list
Date Fri, 13 Mar 2015 22:44:38 GMT

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DRILL-2218?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel

Jason Altekruse updated DRILL-2218:
    Priority: Major  (was: Minor)

> Constant folding rule not being used in plan where the constant expression is in the
select list
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: DRILL-2218
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DRILL-2218
>             Project: Apache Drill
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Query Planning & Optimization
>            Reporter: Jason Altekruse
>            Assignee: Aman Sinha
>             Fix For: 0.9.0
> This test method and rule is not currently in the master branch, but it does appear in
the patch posted for constant expression folding during planning, DRILL-2060. Once it is merged,
the test TestConstantFolding.testConstExprFolding_InSelect() which is currently ignored, will
be failing. The issue is that even though the constant folding rule for project is firing,
and I have traced it to see that a replacement project with a literal is created, it is not
being selected in the final plan. This seems rather odd, as there is a comment in the last
line of the onMatch() method of the rule that says the following. This does not appear to
be having the desired effect, may need to file a bug in calcite.
> {code}
> // New plan is absolutely better than old plan.
> call.getPlanner().setImportance(project, 0.0);
> {code}
> Here is the query from the test, I expect the sum to be folded in planning with the newly
enabled project constant folding rule.
> {code}
> select columns[0], 3+5 from cp.`test_input.csv`
> {code}
> There also some planning bugs that are exposed when this rule is enabled, even if the
ReduceExpressionsRule.PROJECT_INSTANCE has no impact on the plan itself.
> It is causing a planning bug for the TestAggregateFunctions.testDrill2092 as well as
TestProjectPushDown.testProjectPastJoinPastFilterPastJoinPushDown(). The rule's OnMatch is
being called, but not modifying the plan. It seems like its presence in the optimizer is making
another rule fire that is creating a bad plan.

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

View raw message