Xiening - You can reproduce it by running CoreQuidemTest in [1].
Haisheng - those enumerable rules all exist. My change in [1] shouldn't require implementing new enumerable rules. [1]: https://github.com/amaliujia/calcite/tree/rw-add_TVF_TUMBLE On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 12:04 PM Haisheng Yuan <h.y...@alibaba-inc.com> wrote: > Yes, looks like EnumerableTableFunctionScan doesn't override > computeSelfCost. > > - Haisheng > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > 发件人：Haisheng Yuan<h.y...@alibaba-inc.com> > 日 期：2019年11月09日 04:01:19 > 收件人：Apache Calcite dev list<dev@calcite.apache.org> > 主 题：Re: Re: Optimizer: All the inputs have relevant nodes, however the > cost is still infinite. > > It is not surprising to get an infinitive cost, since the operators in the > plan are logical operators, which need to be converted to physical > operators to be costed. Did you try to add some implementation rules to the > rule set, e.g. EnumerableProjectRule, EnumerableTableFunctionScanRule, etc.. > > - Haisheng > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > 发件人：Xiening Dai<xndai....@gmail.com> > 日 期：2019年11月09日 03:35:03 > 收件人：<dev@calcite.apache.org> > 主 题：Re: Optimizer: All the inputs have relevant nodes, however the cost is > still infinite. > > Are you able to provide a test case to repro on current code base? > > From the error message, the given subset’s best RelNode is not available, > aka cost is infinite. There could be multiple cases leading to it. > > > > On Nov 8, 2019, at 11:28 AM, Rui Wang <amaliu...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > My current guess is it could because of `computeSelfCost` of > > `EnumerableTableFunctionScan`. > > > > > > -Rui > > > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 10:04 AM Rui Wang <amaliu...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> Hello community: > >> > >> I am stuck an optimizer error while working on Calcite-3272. I am less > >> familiar with Calcite's optimizer and struggled to debug the following > >> error message. Is there some hints on what direction I should go? I can > >> also provide more information if that is helpful. > >> > >> > >> > >>> java.sql.SQLException: Error while executing SQL "select * FROM > >> TABLE(TUMBLE(TABLE ORDERS, 'ROWTIME', INTERVAL '1' MINUTE))": There are > not > >> enough rules to produce a node with desired properties: > >> convention=ENUMERABLE, sort=[]. All the inputs have relevant nodes, > however > >> the cost is still infinite. > >>> Root: rel#26:Subset#2.ENUMERABLE.[] > >>> Original rel: > >>> LogicalProject(ROWTIME=[$0], ID=[$1], PRODUCT=[$2], UNITS=[$3], > >> wstart=[$4], wend=[$5]): rowcount = 100.0, cumulative cost = > >> {1.7976931348623157E308 rows, 1.7976931348623157E308 cpu, > >> 1.7976931348623157E308 io}, id = 12 > >>> LogicalTableFunctionScan(invocation=[TUMBLE($3, 'ROWTIME', > >> 60000:INTERVAL MINUTE)], rowType=[RecordType(TIMESTAMP(0) ROWTIME, > INTEGER > >> ID, VARCHAR(10) PRODUCT, INTEGER UNITS, TIMESTAMP(0) wstart, > TIMESTAMP(0) > >> wend)]): rowcount = 100.0, cumulative cost = {1.7976931348623157E308 > rows, > >> 1.7976931348623157E308 cpu, 1.7976931348623157E308 io}, id = 10 > >>> LogicalProject(ROWTIME=[$0], ID=[$1], PRODUCT=[$2], UNITS=[$3]): > >> rowcount = 100.0, cumulative cost = {200.0 rows, 501.0 cpu, 0.0 io}, id > = 8 > >>> LogicalTableScan(table=[[ORINOCO, ORDERS]]): rowcount = 100.0, > >> cumulative cost = {100.0 rows, 101.0 cpu, 0.0 io}, id = 2 > >> > >> > >> > >> -Rui > >> > >
