[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-1792?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16018623#comment-16018623
]
Sergiy Simonov edited comment on CALCITE-1792 at 5/20/17 10:00 PM:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Updated PR to preserve comma syntax on cartesian join
But I think you mistake.
Implicit join is the "old" non-ANSI JOIN syntax and explicit JOIN is SQL-92
ANSI standard syntax.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1599050/ansi-vs-non-ansi-sql-join-syntax
was (Author: ssimonov):
Updated PR to preserve comma syntax on cartesian join
> RelToSqlConverter doesn't handle cartesian join (join cond as TRUE)
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CALCITE-1792
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-1792
> Project: Calcite
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: core
> Reporter: Sergiy Simonov
> Assignee: Jess Balint
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 1.12.0
>
>
> this test fails (added in {{RelToSqlConverterTest}}):
> {code}
> @Test public void testCartesianProductWithFullJoinSyntax() {
> String query = "select * from \"department\"\n"
> + "FULL JOIN \"employee\" ON TRUE";
> String expected = "SELECT *\nFROM \"foodmart\".\"department\"\n"
> + "FULL JOIN \"foodmart\".\"employee\" ON TRUE";
> sql(query).ok(expected);
> }
> {code}
> {{RelToSqlConverter}} is checking that the join condition is a {{RexCall}}.
> In this case (and {{RelBuilder.join()}} with no join cond), the join cond is
> a {{RexLiteral}} with a value of {{true}}.
> Suggested fix is to handle the case with this specific join condition before
> {{convertConditionToSqlNode()}}:
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
