[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-4623?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Ruben Q L updated CALCITE-4623: ------------------------------- Description: Issue pointed out by [~zabetak] during the review of CALCITE-4621. Currently, SemiJoinRule (both {{CoreRules.JOIN_TO_SEMI_JOIN}} and {{CoreRules.PROJECT_TO_SEMI_JOIN}}) matches INNER, LEFT and SEMI join. This last join type seems a bit bizarre (why matching a SEMI join if the purpose of this rule is precisely generating one?). It seems that SEMI was introduced in the rule by the "big join design refactoring" (see CALCITE-2969 and [4809393|https://github.com/apache/calcite/commit/48093937ae4db179884d1111fa9d12e978e57e1f]). The purpose of this ticket is to confirm whether or not processing SEMI in SemiJoinRule makes sense (and if not, remove it). was: Issue pointed out by [~zabetak] during the review of CALCITE-4621. Currently, SemiJoinRule (both {{CoreRules.JOIN_TO_SEMI_JOIN}} and {{CoreRules.PROJECT_TO_SEMI_JOIN}}) matches INNER, LEFT and SEMI join. This last join type seems a bit bizarre (why matching a SEMI join if the purpose of this rule is precisely generating one). It seems that SEMI was introduced in the rule by the "big join design refactoring" (see CALCITE-2969 and [4809393|https://github.com/apache/calcite/commit/48093937ae4db179884d1111fa9d12e978e57e1f]). The purpose of this ticket is to confirm whether or not processing SEMI in SemiJoinRule makes sense (and if not, remove it). > Review if SemiJoinRule shall / shall not match SEMI join > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CALCITE-4623 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-4623 > Project: Calcite > Issue Type: Task > Components: core > Affects Versions: 1.26.0 > Reporter: Ruben Q L > Priority: Major > > Issue pointed out by [~zabetak] during the review of CALCITE-4621. > Currently, SemiJoinRule (both {{CoreRules.JOIN_TO_SEMI_JOIN}} and > {{CoreRules.PROJECT_TO_SEMI_JOIN}}) matches INNER, LEFT and SEMI join. This > last join type seems a bit bizarre (why matching a SEMI join if the purpose > of this rule is precisely generating one?). > It seems that SEMI was introduced in the rule by the "big join design > refactoring" (see CALCITE-2969 and > [4809393|https://github.com/apache/calcite/commit/48093937ae4db179884d1111fa9d12e978e57e1f]). > The purpose of this ticket is to confirm whether or not processing SEMI in > SemiJoinRule makes sense (and if not, remove it). -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v8.3.4#803005)