Perfect! Thank you so much!
On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 12:41 Alessandro Solimando < alessandro.solima...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hey Eric, > that's correct and it's FilterSetOpTransposeRule > < > https://github.com/apache/calcite/blob/73e83f6be78c1d6a021a17385463ea572cf0473c/core/src/main/java/org/apache/calcite/rel/rules/FilterSetOpTransposeRule.java > > > that > performs such transformations for set operators (including UNION ALL). > > HTH, > Alessandro > > On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 at 18:28, Eric Berryman <eric.berry...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Thank you, > > > > That makes sense. But it seems I should see a filter pushed below for a > > where on a union, no? > > ie. > > SELECT t2.field > > FROM ( > > SELECT id, field FROM table1 > > UNION ALL > > SELECT id, field FROM table2 > > UNION ALL > > SELECT id, field FROM table3) as t2 > > WHERE t2.field = 'test' > > > > Thank you again! > > Eric > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 5:43 AM Stamatis Zampetakis <zabe...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hey Eric, > > > > > > When you have a disjunction in the WHERE clause it may not be safe to > > > push the condition below a join especially when it comes to outer > > > joins. I suppose that the FilterJoinRule [1] is the place that you > > > want to check to see if the filter can be pushed below the join and > > > into the scan. > > > > > > Best, > > > Stamatis > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/calcite/blob/8d9b27f1ace7f975407920cb88806715b1f0ef82/core/src/main/java/org/apache/calcite/rel/rules/FilterJoinRule.java > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 11:22 PM Eric Berryman <eric.berry...@gmail.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > I'm making a FilterableTable with LDAP as a backend. > > > > > > > > I noticed in the FilterableTable method: > > > > public Enumerable<Object[]> scan(DataContext root, List<RexNode> > > filters) > > > > > > > > The filters list is empty if the sql where clause is checking the > same > > > > field in all tables. > > > > ie. > > > > select test1.field test2.field > > > > from test1 > > > > full outer join test2 on test1.id = test2.id > > > > where test1.field = 'myval' or test2.field = 'myval'; > > > > > > > > When I do an EXPLAIN PLAN FOR select ... > > > > I notice the BindableTableScan filters array is empty with both: > > > > where test1.field = 'myval' or test2.field = 'myval'; > > > > and it has the filter if I remove one: > > > > where test1.field = 'myval' > > > > > > > > Is there an example I could be pointed to help understand the query > > > planner > > > > here, and hopefully write my implementation such that the filters > show > > up > > > > as expected for each table? > > > > > > > > Thank you! > > > > Eric > > > > > >
