yyanyy commented on a change in pull request #1747:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/1747#discussion_r528940499
##########
File path: api/src/main/java/org/apache/iceberg/expressions/Expressions.java
##########
@@ -123,6 +123,22 @@ public static Expression not(Expression child) {
return new UnboundPredicate<>(Expression.Operation.NOT_NULL, expr);
}
+ public static <T> UnboundPredicate<T> isNaN(String name) {
+ return new UnboundPredicate<>(Expression.Operation.IS_NAN, ref(name));
+ }
+
+ public static <T> UnboundPredicate<T> isNaN(UnboundTerm<T> expr) {
+ return new UnboundPredicate<>(Expression.Operation.IS_NAN, expr);
+ }
+
+ public static <T> UnboundPredicate<T> notNaN(String name) {
+ return new UnboundPredicate<>(Expression.Operation.NOT_NAN, ref(name));
+ }
+
+ public static <T> UnboundPredicate<T> notNaN(UnboundTerm<T> expr) {
+ return new UnboundPredicate<>(Expression.Operation.NOT_NAN, expr);
+ }
Review comment:
So now since we want to handle NaN in `in` predicate, for query `in(1,2,
NaN)` to avoid checking for NaN in `in` evaluation all the time we can
transform that to `in(1,2) or isNaN`, and `notIn(1,2,NaN)` to `notIn(1, 2) and
notNaN`. The problem is where to do that, since `in` and `notIn` are both
predicate, and if we are extending them we are transforming a predicate
(simpler form) to an expression (complex form), and I think there's no such
case in the current code base, and it would touch a lot of existing test cases
for this.
----------------------------------------------------------------
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.
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
