Julian Hyde created OPTIQ-419:
---------------------------------
Summary: Naming convention for planner rules
Key: OPTIQ-419
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPTIQ-419
Project: Optiq
Issue Type: Bug
Reporter: Julian Hyde
Assignee: Julian Hyde
I propose a new naming convention for planner rules. This change would rename
existing rules.
The naming convention is advisory, not mandatory. Rule authors would not need
to follow it if they don’t feel that it makes things clearer.
Discussion from the dev list:
As the number of rules grows, it becomes more difficult to find out whether a
similar rule has already been added. The fact that there are several ways to
name a rule adds to the confusion.
For instance, consider a rule that converts ‘join(project(x), project(y))’ into
‘project(join(x, y))’. The actual rule is called
{{PullUpProjectsAboveJoinRule}} but it could equally be called
{{PushJoinThroughProjectsRule}}.
There are lots of rules called {{PushXxxThroughYyyRule}}, too.
I propose the naming convention
{{<Reltype1><Reltype2>[…]<Verb>Rule}}
where {{ReltypeN}} is the class of the Nth {{RelNode}} matched, in depth-first
order, ignoring unimportant operands, and removing any ‘Rel’ suffix
Verb is what happens — typically Transpose, Swap, Merge, Optimize.
Thus:
* {{PullUpProjectsAboveJoinRule}} becomes {{JoinProjectTransposeRule}}
* {{PushAggregateThroughUnionRule}} becomes {{AggregateUnionTransposeRule}}
* {{MergeProjectRule}} becomes {{ProjectMergeRule}}
* {{MergeFilterOntoCalcRule}} becomes {{FilterCalcMergeRule}}
* {{EnumerableJoinRule}} remains {{EnumerableJoinRule}} (Or how about
{{JoinAsEnumerableRule}}?)
* {{SwapJoinRule}} becomes {{JoinSwapInputsRule}}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
