> On Aug. 31, 2016, 6:31 p.m., Jesús Camacho Rodríguez wrote:
> > ql/src/java/org/apache/hadoop/hive/ql/optimizer/pcr/PcrExprProcFactory.java,
> >  line 286
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/51542/diff/1/?file=1488888#file1488888line286>
> >
> >     Will STRUCT with all constants inside e.g. (x, y) in (1,2), be handled 
> > correctly by this code block? In that case, (1, 2) should be considered a 
> > constant, thus we could remove the IN. However, I think currently we will 
> > end up with UNKNOWN state and we will never remove it. I think that was a 
> > case that we were supporting previously, thus it would be a regression. 
> > Could you double check?
> 
> Sergey Shelukhin wrote:
>     Those are handled elsewhere. See pointlookup tests where they are removed
> 
> Jesús Camacho Rodríguez wrote:
>     I do not understand what you mean. Removal of pcr is handled here. I have 
> been checking : pointlookup tests do not contain any test that removes an IN 
> clause with STRUCT.
>     
>     Consider the following (based on pointlookup4):
>     create table pcr_t1 (key int, value string) partitioned by (ds1 string, 
> ds2 string);
>     insert overwrite table pcr_t1 partition (ds1='2000-04-08', 
> ds2='2001-04-08') select * from src where key < 20 order by key;
>     insert overwrite table pcr_t1 partition (ds1='2000-04-09', 
> ds2='2001-04-09') select * from src where key < 20 order by key;
>     select select key, value, ds1, ds2
>     from pcr_t1
>     where (struct(ds1,ds2)) IN (struct('2000-04-08','2001-04-08'), 
> struct('2000-04-09','2001-04-09'));
>     
>     For the query above, once we have executed partitioned prunning, the 
> filter predicate can be removed. I am afraid that with the new change in the 
> code, we will identify the CONST STRUCT e.g. 
> struct('2000-04-08','2001-04-08') as UNKNOWN, and thus we will not consider 
> that predicate for removal. In fact, the extension should be as easy as 
> checking whether the STRUCT is a CONST STRUCT or not, and create the 
> WalkState accordingly.
>     
>     I think it is important to deal with this case, as I guess this kind of 
> predicates were the objective when support for IN-STRUCT clauses was added to 
> PCR in the first place.
> 
> Sergey Shelukhin wrote:
>     These should be handled by constant folding in handleDeterministicUdf. 
> Example predicate removed would be and (struct(ds1,ds2)) IN (const 
> struct('2000-04-08','2001-04-08'), const struct('2000-04-09','2001-04-09'))) 
> in pointlookup4 (generated from  (ds1='2000-04-08' and ds2='2001-04-08' and 
> key=1) or (ds1='2000-04-09' and ds2='2001-04-09' and key=2))

You are right, as checkForPartColsAndUnknown will return false instead of null. 
And then it is identified as constant. Thanks for double checking.


- Jesús


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/51542/#review147456
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Aug. 31, 2016, 7:38 p.m., Sergey Shelukhin wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/51542/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Aug. 31, 2016, 7:38 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for hive and Jesús Camacho Rodríguez.
> 
> 
> Bugs: HIVE-14652
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-14652
> 
> 
> Repository: hive-git
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> see jira
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   ql/src/java/org/apache/hadoop/hive/ql/optimizer/pcr/PcrExprProcFactory.java 
> f9388e2 
>   ql/src/java/org/apache/hadoop/hive/ql/parse/ParseContext.java b2125ca 
>   ql/src/test/queries/clientpositive/partition_condition_remover.q 
> PRE-CREATION 
>   ql/src/test/results/clientpositive/partition_condition_remover.q.out 
> PRE-CREATION 
>   ql/src/test/results/clientpositive/pcs.q.out 0045c1c 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/51542/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Sergey Shelukhin
> 
>

Reply via email to