Minor: Add test case for reduce cross join #4577
Conversation
| for repartition_joins in test_repartition_joins { | ||
| let ctx = create_join_context("t1_id", "t2_id", repartition_joins)?; | ||
|
|
||
| let sql = "select *,t1.t1_id+11 from t1,t2 where t1.t1_id+11=t2.t2_id"; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
select *,t1.t1_id+10 from t1,t2 where t1.t1_id+10=t2.t2_id;
will generate empty result set, I change to t1_id+11.
| "Explain [plan_type:Utf8, plan:Utf8]", | ||
| " Projection: t1.t1_id, t1.t1_name, t1.t1_int, t2.t2_id, t2.t2_name, t2.t2_int, CAST(t1.t1_id AS Int64) + Int64(11) [t1_id:UInt32;N, t1_name:Utf8;N, t1_int:UInt32;N, t2_id:UInt32;N, t2_name:Utf8;N, t2_int:UInt32;N, t1.t1_id + Int64(11):Int64;N]", | ||
| " Projection: t1.t1_id, t1.t1_name, t1.t1_int, t2.t2_id, t2.t2_name, t2.t2_int [t1_id:UInt32;N, t1_name:Utf8;N, t1_int:UInt32;N, t2_id:UInt32;N, t2_name:Utf8;N, t2_int:UInt32;N]", | ||
| " Inner Join: t1.t1_id + Int64(11) = CAST(t2.t2_id AS Int64) [t1_id:UInt32;N, t1_name:Utf8;N, t1_int:UInt32;N, t1.t1_id + Int64(11):Int64;N, t2_id:UInt32;N, t2_name:Utf8;N, t2_int:UInt32;N, CAST(t2.t2_id AS Int64):Int64;N]", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
left project is ...CAST(t1.t1_id AS Int64) + Int64(11), and the right project is ...CAST(t2.t2_id AS Int64) AS CAST(t2.t2_id AS Int64)
But the condition of join is t1.t1_id + Int64(11) = CAST(t2.t2_id AS Int64).
Do we need to do type coercion for the exprs in the Join Plan after this pr #4353?
cc @ygf11
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But the condition of join is t1.t1_id + Int64(11) = CAST(t2.t2_id AS Int64).
The reason is projection will:
- using
expr.display_name()---t1.t1_id + Int64(11)as field name to generate its schema, which we also use to find the field. - using
full expr name---CAST(t1.t1_id AS Int64) + Int64(11)to display the projection expression.
To address this gap, we can add alias or remove these projections #4389. I am working on #4389, and plan to submit a pr today or tomorrow.
Do we need to do type coercion for the exprs in the Join Plan after this pr #4353?
No, I think the type coercion already has done in this test case, because the join keys are from join filter which has been optimized.
Which issue does this PR close?
Closes #.
This pr is to fix #4443 (review)
cc @liukun4515
Rationale for this change
What changes are included in this PR?
Are these changes tested?
Are there any user-facing changes?