mbutrovich commented on code in PR #26686: URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/26686#discussion_r4367247439
########## datafusion/sqllogictest/test_files/datetime/date_part.slt: ########## @@ -1289,6 +1419,124 @@ SELECT extract(day from arrow_cast(NULL, 'Duration(Second)')) ---- NULL +# nanosecond on a duration is its total length in nanoseconds +query IIII +SELECT extract(nanosecond from arrow_cast(1500000000, 'Duration(Nanosecond)')), + extract(nanosecond from arrow_cast(1500000, 'Duration(Microsecond)')), + extract(nanosecond from arrow_cast(1500, 'Duration(Millisecond)')), + extract(nanosecond from arrow_cast(2, 'Duration(Second)')) +---- +1500000000 1500000000 1500000000 2000000000 + +# around i32::MAX nanoseconds +query III +SELECT extract(nanosecond from arrow_cast(2147483647, 'Duration(Nanosecond)')), + extract(nanosecond from arrow_cast(2147483648, 'Duration(Nanosecond)')), + extract(nanosecond from arrow_cast(62500000000, 'Duration(Nanosecond)')) +---- +2147483647 2147483648 62500000000 + +query II +SELECT extract(nanosecond from arrow_cast(-1500000000, 'Duration(Nanosecond)')), + extract(nanosecond from arrow_cast(-62500, 'Duration(Millisecond)')) +---- +-1500000000 -62500000000 + +query I +SELECT extract(nanosecond from arrow_cast(column1, 'Duration(Millisecond)')) +FROM (VALUES (1500), (NULL), (62500), (NULL), (-2)) +---- +1500000000 +NULL +62500000000 +NULL +-2000000 + +query II +SELECT extract(nanosecond from arrow_cast(9223372036854775807, 'Duration(Nanosecond)')), + extract(nanosecond from arrow_cast(-9223372036854775808, 'Duration(Nanosecond)')) +---- +9223372036854775807 -9223372036854775808 + +# values that overflow are NULL, like the other parts of a duration +query II +SELECT extract(nanosecond from arrow_cast(column1, 'Duration(Second)')), + extract(nanosecond from arrow_cast(column2, 'Duration(Millisecond)')) +FROM (VALUES (9223372036, -9223372036854), (9223372037, -9223372036855), (NULL, NULL)) +---- +9223372036000000000 -9223372036854000000 +NULL NULL +NULL NULL + +# millisecond and microsecond on a duration are its total length in that unit +query II +SELECT extract(millisecond from arrow_cast(5500000000, 'Duration(Nanosecond)')), + extract(microsecond from arrow_cast(5500000000, 'Duration(Nanosecond)')) +---- +5500 5500000 + +# truncates toward zero, like the other parts of a duration +query III +SELECT extract(millisecond from arrow_cast(-1500, 'Duration(Microsecond)')), + extract(millisecond from arrow_cast(-1500000, 'Duration(Nanosecond)')), + extract(second from arrow_cast(-1500, 'Duration(Millisecond)')) +---- +-1 -1 -1 + +query I +SELECT extract(microsecond from arrow_cast(column1, 'Duration(Nanosecond)')) +FROM (VALUES (5500000000), (NULL), (-62500000000), (NULL)) +---- +5500000 +NULL +-62500000 +NULL + +# around i32::MAX +query II +SELECT extract(millisecond from arrow_cast(2147483647, 'Duration(Millisecond)')), + extract(microsecond from arrow_cast(2147, 'Duration(Second)')) +---- +2147483647 2147000000 + +# values that overflow Int32 are NULL, like the other parts of a duration +query II +SELECT extract(millisecond from arrow_cast(column1, 'Duration(Millisecond)')), + extract(microsecond from arrow_cast(column2, 'Duration(Second)')) +FROM (VALUES (2147483648, 2148), (-2147483649, -2148), (NULL, NULL)) +---- +NULL NULL +NULL NULL +NULL NULL + +# Reproducer from https://github.com/apache/datafusion/issues/14738: 2.4e9 microseconds don't fit in Int32 +query I +SELECT date_part('microsecond', timestamp '1970-01-01T00:40:00' - timestamp '1970-01-01T00:00:00') +---- Review Comment: > Should this be `Part of #14738`, with the semantics question left open? Or is NULL the agreed outcome? I changed it to `Part of #14738` and left a comment on the issue. The reproducer's [comment](https://github.com/apache/datafusion/blob/48ff4d8da0d3a990f6ef216e13ef4e1f5cbe758f/datafusion/sqllogictest/test_files/datetime/date_part.slt#L1608-L1614) now says why Postgres returns 0 and this returns NULL. On the [dev list](https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/90cqgs9dotp39tcwr5ophvb2ftvjc43p), `@alamb` agreed with NULL for now and suggested following Postgres where we can. I'd leave the rest to the issue, since adopting Postgres's meaning would change every `Duration` part. -- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
