jayzhan211 commented on PR #11229: URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/11229#issuecomment-2212868721
> Hi @jayzhan211, > > I took another look at this and am have some uncertainty I’d like to get feedback on. From what I can tell, it seems like I need to keep in the wildcard rule in for now as it is responsible for window functions which would seem to have a different planner than aggregate functions (?). Also, because this plans an expression and not a logical plan, the rule is needed to support the dataframe API COUNT(*) like `ctx.table(“t1”).select(vec![count(wildcard())])` (?). > > More generally, with this approach, as I mentioned in the code comment, I’m having issues understanding how to maintain naming, e.g. for logical plan display. If I do `vec![lit(COUNT_STAR_EXPANSION).alias(“*”)]` this can look right in some cases because it becomes `COUNT(*)` but is more akin to `COUNT(1 AS *)` so it fails other tests around printing the logical plan. This seems to not be an issue with the rule approach. > > Do you have any recommendations for how to approach this given the comments above? Ideally we can display those functions `count()`, `count(const)`, `count(*)` all to the same name like `count(*)` (?) -- 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: github-unsubscr...@datafusion.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscr...@datafusion.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: github-h...@datafusion.apache.org
