drill-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sean Hsuan-Yi Chu (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Updated] (DRILL-3807) [Regression] Query with equality join and a FALSE condition fails to plan
Date Tue, 22 Sep 2015 16:14:04 GMT

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DRILL-3807?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]

Sean Hsuan-Yi Chu updated DRILL-3807:
-------------------------------------
    Summary: [Regression] Query with equality join and a FALSE condition fails to plan  (was:
Query with equality join and a FALSE condition fails to plan (possible regression))

> [Regression] Query with equality join and a FALSE condition fails to plan
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: DRILL-3807
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DRILL-3807
>             Project: Apache Drill
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Query Planning & Optimization
>    Affects Versions: 1.2.0
>            Reporter: Aman Sinha
>            Assignee: Sean Hsuan-Yi Chu
>
> 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT behavior: 
> {code}
> 0: jdbc:drill:zk=local> explain plan for select l.l_quantity from cp.`tpch/lineitem.parquet`
l, cp.`tpch/part.parquet` p where l.l_partkey = p.p_partkey and (1 = 0);
> Error: UNSUPPORTED_OPERATION ERROR: This query cannot be planned possibly due to either
a cartesian join or an inequality join
> [Error Id: f7466d86-b709-465e-bb49-d3c51ecf941b on 172.16.0.160:31010] (state=,code=0)
> {code}
> The simplification of  ' l.l_partkey = p.p_partkey and (1 = 0)' to a False condition
is valid and accordingly Drill fails to plan due to the cartesian join introduced by the False
condition.   However,  in 1.1.0 apparently the 1=0 was converted to a LIMIT 0 which was pushed
below the Join and the query successfully planned and executed: 
> 1.1.0 behavior: 
> {code}
> 0: jdbc:drill:zk=local> explain plan for select l.l_quantity from cp.`tpch/lineitem.parquet`
l, cp.`tpch/part.parquet` p where l.l_partkey = p.p_partkey and (1 = 0);
> +------+------+
> | text | json |
> +------+------+
> | 00-00    Screen
> 00-01      Project(l_quantity=[$1])
> 00-02        HashJoin(condition=[=($0, $2)], joinType=[inner])
> 00-04          SelectionVectorRemover
> 00-05            Limit(offset=[0], fetch=[0])
> 00-06              Scan(groupscan=[ParquetGroupScan [entries=[ReadEntryWithPath [path=classpath:/tpch/lineitem.parquet]],
selectionRoot=classpath:/tpch/lineitem.parquet, numFiles=1, columns=[`l_partkey`, `l_quantity`]]])
> 00-03          Scan(groupscan=[ParquetGroupScan [entries=[ReadEntryWithPath [path=classpath:/tpch/part.parquet]],
selectionRoot=classpath:/tpch/part.parquet, numFiles=1, columns=[`p_partkey`]]])
> {code}
> [~cchang] and I looked at the commit history and it appears that the regression started
somewhere between Aug 24 and Aug 28, which is the time when we rebased on Calcite 1.4.0. 
So we need to narrow down further the change that may have caused this. 



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Mime
View raw message