vlsi commented on a change in pull request #1840: [CALCITE-3753] Remove rule
queue importance
URL: https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/1840#discussion_r388573407
##########
File path: core/src/test/java/org/apache/calcite/test/LatticeTest.java
##########
@@ -677,10 +677,10 @@ private void checkTileAlgorithm(String statisticProvider,
+ "join \"foodmart\".\"time_by_day\" using (\"time_id\")\n"
+ "group by \"the_year\"")
.enableMaterializations(true)
- .explainContains("EnumerableCalc(expr#0=[{inputs}], expr#1=[IS NOT
NULL($t0)], "
- + "expr#2=[1:BIGINT], expr#3=[0:BIGINT], expr#4=[CASE($t1, $t2,
$t3)], C=[$t4])\n"
- + " EnumerableAggregate(group=[{0}])\n"
- + " EnumerableTableScan(table=[[adhoc, m{32, 36}]])")
+ .explainContains("EnumerableCalc(expr#0..1=[{inputs}], C=[$t1])\n"
+ + " EnumerableAggregate(group=[{0}], C=[COUNT($0)])\n"
+ + " EnumerableAggregate(group=[{0}])\n"
Review comment:
Who will fix the costing model then?
I think it is unfair to merge a change that is not really compatible with
the costing model.
If the change to optimizer requires adjustments to the costing model, then
could you please do that in a single PR, so we see the net changes for both
plans and the response times?
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
With regards,
Apache Git Services
