Hi Xuyang, Thank you for the information regarding the bug fix.
I will proceed with the method of joining input_table and udtf first. Thank you for the suggestion. Best regards, Norihiro Fuke. 2024年7月15日(月) 10:43 Xuyang <xyzhong...@163.com>: > Hi, this is a bug fixed in > https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/25075/files#diff-4ee2dd065d2b45fb64cacd5977bec6126396cc3b56e72addfe434701ac301efeL405 > <https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/25075>. > > > You can try to join input_table and udtf first, and then use it as the > input of window tvf to bypass this bug. > > > -- > Best！ > Xuyang > > > At 2024-07-09 10:35:04, "Norihiro FUKE" <n.fuke.ou....@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, community > > I encountered a scala.matchError when trying to obtain the table plan for > the following query in Flink 1.18.1. > > The input data is read from Kafka, and the query is intended to perform a > typical WordCount operation. The query is as follows. SPLIT_STRING is a > Table Function UDF that splits sentences into words by spaces. > > ```SELECT > window_start, > word, > COUNT(*) AS `count` > FROM > TABLE( > TUMBLE(TABLE input_table, DESCRIPTOR(proctime), INTERVAL '10' SECOND)), > LATERAL TABLE(SPLIT_STRING(sentence)) AS T(word) > GROUP BY > window_start, > window_end, > word``` > > The error message received is: > > ``` > [ERR] scala.MatchError: rel#177237:FlinkLogicalCorrelate.LOGICAL.any.None: > 0.[NONE].[NONE](left=RelSubset#177235,right=RelSubset#177236,correlation=$cor0,joinType=inner,requiredColumns={1}) > (of class > org.apache.flink.table.planner.plan.nodes.logical.FlinkLogicalCorrelate) > ``` > > I believe that the issue lies in the existNeighbourWindowTableFunc method > in flink-table-planner/WindowUtil.scala, where there is an unconsidered > node (FlinkLogicalCorrelate) when traversing the AST. (This method was > added in FLINK-32578.) I suspect this comes from the LATERAL entry. While > this query was FlinkLogicalCorrelate, I think there might be other > unconsidered nodes as well. > > I have two questions regarding this: > > 1. Is it an expected behavior for scala.matchError to occur in this > case? In other words, I suspect this might be an unreported bug. > 2. In the code comments of the PR mentioned in the FLINK-32578 ticket, > I found the terms "standard form" and "relax form." I searched for "relax > form" in the Flink documentation but could not find any reference. As a > workaround for this issue, using the WITH clause could be considered, but I > am uncertain if this is a universal solution. > > Thank you for your assistance. > >
