[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-3928?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17087322#comment-17087322
]
Vineet Garg commented on CALCITE-3928:
--------------------------------------
[~jinxing6...@126.com] Can you provide the actual query or test case? We might
be missing a case for rewriting but I am not sure if I understand this fully.
> Canonicalization doesn't do field trimming before materialized view matching
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CALCITE-3928
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-3928
> Project: Calcite
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Jin Xing
> Priority: Major
>
> If we have query and materialized view as below:
> {code:java}
> query:
> LogicalAggregate(group=[{0}], EXPR$1=[afunc($1, $1)])
> LogicalProject(a=$0, b=[bfunc($1)])
> LogicalTableScan(table=[[default, user_table]])
> mv:
> LogicalAggregate(group=[{0}], EXPR$1=[afunc($1, $2)])
> LogicalProject(a=$0, b=[bfunc($1)], c=[bfunc($1)])
> LogicalTableScan(table=[[default, user_table]])
> {code}
> The semantics of query and mv logic are the same. Materialized view matching
> failed, because field trimming is not done when canonicalizing the plans.
> Currently Calcite does field trimming when convert sql to rel. But my
> company's internal system does materialization detection – – generates &
> transforms & stores the RelNode.
> Shall we add the field trimming when canonicalizing materialized view logic?
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
