xiedeyantu commented on code in PR #4557:
URL: https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/4557#discussion_r2382787899
##########
core/src/main/java/org/apache/calcite/rex/RexUtil.java:
##########
@@ -1718,7 +1726,67 @@ public static boolean isLosslessCast(RelDataType source,
RelDataType target) {
final int targetPrecision = target.getPrecision();
return targetPrecision == PRECISION_NOT_SPECIFIED || targetPrecision >=
sourceLength;
}
- // Return FALSE by default
+
+ // 4) DECIMAL -> DECIMAL
Review Comment:
A very small suggestion is, can you unify the text description of each step?
Currently, the style seems inconsistent.
##########
core/src/main/java/org/apache/calcite/sql/type/SqlTypeUtil.java:
##########
@@ -556,6 +557,87 @@ public static boolean isExactNumeric(RelDataType type) {
}
}
+ /**
+ * Returns whether {@code container} can represent every value produced by
+ * {@code content} without loss of information.
+ *
+ * <p>The {@code container} type must be one of the integer types (signed or
+ * unsigned). The {@code content} type can be integer, or a DECIMAL with
+ * scale {@code 0}. For all other types this method returns {@code false}.
+ *
+ * @throws IllegalArgumentException if {@code container} is not an integer
type
+ */
+ @API(since = "1.40", status = API.Status.EXPERIMENTAL)
Review Comment:
If the `isLosslessCast` method has been marked as stable, is it necessary to
mark this method as experimental?
##########
core/src/test/resources/sql/planner.iq:
##########
@@ -223,15 +224,16 @@ select a from (values (1.0), (4.0), (null)) as t3 (a);
!ok
-EnumerableCalc(expr#0=[{inputs}], expr#1=[CAST($t0):DECIMAL(11, 1)], A=[$t1])
- EnumerableNestedLoopJoin(condition=[OR(AND(IS NULL(CAST($0):DECIMAL(11, 1)),
IS NULL(CAST($1):DECIMAL(11, 1))), =(CAST($0):DECIMAL(11, 1),
CAST($1):DECIMAL(11, 1)))], joinType=[anti])
- EnumerableAggregate(group=[{0}])
- EnumerableNestedLoopJoin(condition=[=(CAST($0):DECIMAL(11, 1) NOT NULL,
CAST($1):DECIMAL(11, 1) NOT NULL)], joinType=[anti])
- EnumerableCalc(expr#0=[{inputs}], expr#1=[CAST($t0):DECIMAL(11, 1) NOT
NULL], A=[$t1])
- EnumerableValues(tuples=[[{ 1.0 }, { 2.0 }, { 3.0 }, { 4.0 }, { 5.0
}]])
- EnumerableCalc(expr#0=[{inputs}], expr#1=[CAST($t0):DECIMAL(11, 1) NOT
NULL], A=[$t1])
- EnumerableValues(tuples=[[{ 1 }, { 2 }]])
- EnumerableCalc(expr#0=[{inputs}], expr#1=[CAST($t0):DECIMAL(11, 1)],
A=[$t1])
+EnumerableCalc(expr#0..1=[{inputs}], expr#2=[CAST($t0):DECIMAL(11, 1)],
A=[$t2])
+ EnumerableHashJoin(condition=[=($1, $3)], joinType=[anti])
+ EnumerableCalc(expr#0=[{inputs}], expr#1=[CAST($t0):DECIMAL(11, 1)],
proj#0..1=[{exprs}])
+ EnumerableAggregate(group=[{0}])
+ EnumerableNestedLoopJoin(condition=[=(CAST($0):DECIMAL(11, 1) NOT
NULL, CAST($1):DECIMAL(11, 1) NOT NULL)], joinType=[anti])
+ EnumerableCalc(expr#0=[{inputs}], expr#1=[CAST($t0):DECIMAL(11, 1)
NOT NULL], A=[$t1])
+ EnumerableValues(tuples=[[{ 1.0 }, { 2.0 }, { 3.0 }, { 4.0 }, {
5.0 }]])
+ EnumerableCalc(expr#0=[{inputs}], expr#1=[CAST($t0):DECIMAL(11, 1)
NOT NULL], A=[$t1])
+ EnumerableValues(tuples=[[{ 1 }, { 2 }]])
+ EnumerableCalc(expr#0=[{inputs}], expr#1=[CAST($t0):DECIMAL(11, 1)],
A=[$t1], A0=[$t1])
Review Comment:
Why is there an extra A0 here?
--
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.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
