Hi Pavel, Yes, I missed the list, sorry.
ср, 19 мая 2021 г. в 14:40, Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>: > Hi Vladimir, > > Looks like this message is for d...@calcite.apache.org, not > dev@ignite.apache.org, > or am I mistaken? > > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 2:25 PM Vladimir Ozerov <ppoze...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > The AggregateUnionTransposeRule attempts to push the Aggregate below the > > Union. > > > > Before: > > Aggregate[group=$0, agg=SUM($1] > > Union[all] > > Input1 > > Input2 > > > > After: > > Aggregate[group=$0, agg=SUM($1] > > Union[all] > > Aggregate[group=$0, agg=SUM($1] > > Input1 > > Aggregate[group=$0, agg=SUM($1] > > Input2 > > > > When pushing the Aggregate, it checks whether the input is definitively > > unique on the grouping key. If yes, the Aggregate is not installed on top > > of the input, assuming that the result would be the same as without the > > aggregate. This generates a type mismatch exception when aggregation is > > pushed only to some of the inputs: > > Aggregate[group=$0, agg=SUM($1] > > Union[all] > > Aggregate[group=$0, agg=SUM($1] > > Input1 > > Input2 > > > > It seems that the uniqueness check should not be in that rule at all, and > > the aggregate should be pushed unconditionally. Motivation: we already > have > > AggregateRemoveRule that removes unnecessary aggregates. No need to > > duplicate the same non-trivial logic twice. > > > > Does the proposal make sense to you? > > > > Regards, > > Vladimir. > > >
