Done: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-4616?focusedCommentId=17351269&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-17351269
пт, 21 мая 2021 г. в 21:32, Julian Hyde <jhyde.apa...@gmail.com>: > Can you add your proposed fix to the bug, and we can discuss there. > > > On May 21, 2021, at 2:33 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <ppoze...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I created two issues for two distinct bugs in > AggregateUnionTransposeRule: > > > > 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-4616 - the problem > with > > a partial Aggregate push-down > > 2. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-4615 - the problem > with > > an incorrect type of aggregate call (not discussed in this thread > before) > > > > Regarding issue 1, my proposal is to remove the partial pushdown > > optimization completely. We may do the following: > > > > 1. Iterate over all inputs, and check if they have a unique key on the > > Aggregate's group key. > > 2. If all inputs are unique, return as there is no sense to push the > > Aggregate past Union. > > 3. If at least one input is not unique, push aggregate to *all* inputs, > > to maintain the proper row type, assuming that the AggregateRemoveRule > > will eventually remove unnecessary aggregations. > > > > Regards, > > Vladimir. > > > > пт, 21 мая 2021 г. в 09:43, JiaTao Tao <taojia...@gmail.com>: > > > >> Sounds make sense > >> > >> Regards! > >> > >> Aron Tao > >> > >> > >> Vladimir Ozerov <ppoze...@gmail.com> 于2021年5月19日周三 下午8:57写道： > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> The AggregateUnionTransposeRule attempts to push the Aggregate below > the > >>> Union. > >>> > >>> Before: > >>> Aggregate[group=$0, agg=SUM($1] > >>> Union[all] > >>> Input1 > >>> Input2 > >>> > >>> After: > >>> Aggregate[group=$0, agg=SUM($1] > >>> Union[all] > >>> Aggregate[group=$0, agg=SUM($1] > >>> Input1 > >>> Aggregate[group=$0, agg=SUM($1] > >>> Input2 > >>> > >>> When pushing the Aggregate, it checks whether the input is definitively > >>> unique on the grouping key. If yes, the Aggregate is not installed on > top > >>> of the input, assuming that the result would be the same as without the > >>> Aggregate. This generates a type mismatch exception when aggregation is > >>> pushed only to some of the inputs: > >>> Aggregate[group=$0, agg=SUM($1] > >>> Union[all] > >>> Aggregate[group=$0, agg=SUM($1] > >>> Input1 > >>> Input2 > >>> > >>> It seems that the uniqueness check should not be in that rule at all, > and > >>> the aggregate should be pushed unconditionally. Motivation: we already > >> have > >>> AggregateRemoveRule that removes unnecessary aggregates. No need to > >>> duplicate the same non-trivial logic twice. > >>> > >>> Does the proposal make sense to you? > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Vladimir. > >>> > >> > >
