Repository navigation
feat: support nanosecond date_part - #20674
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Support using 'nanosecond' as a part in the date_part function. If nanosecond is requested then the date_part will return the seconds, and smaller units, scaled to nanoseconds. This is consistent with the behaviour of 'millisecond' and 'microsecond'. In order to accomodate the required range of results, a request for 'nanosecond' will return a 64-bit integer, rather than a 32-bit integer as is returned for everything else (except 'epoch').
github-actions
Bot
added
sqllogictest
alamb
approved these changes
Mar 3, 2026
| matches!(part.to_lowercase().as_str(), "epoch") | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| fn is_nanosecond(part: &str) -> bool { |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it worth adding a note that this is required due to the fact that nanosecond needs a different return type
| let subsecs = as_int32_array(subsecs.as_ref())?; | ||
|
|
||
| // Special case where there are no nulls. | ||
| if subsecs.null_count() == 0 { |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would it be safer to also check sec.nulls too? It does feel like any nulls in subsecs would also be in secs and vica versa
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I re-reviewed the code and since they both come from calling arrow date_part I don't think this is necessary
| 12123456 | ||
|
|
||
| query error DataFusion error: This feature is not implemented: Date part Nanosecond not supported | ||
| query I |
| .zip(subsecs) | ||
| .map(|(secs, subsecs)| { | ||
| secs.map(|secs| { | ||
| let subsecs = subsecs.unwrap_or(0); |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I didn't see any test coverage of nulls 🤔 -- maybe we can add some
Contributor
|
I took the liberty of adding some comments and a few more tests |
de-bgunter
pushed a commit
to de-bgunter/datafusion
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 24, 2026
Support using 'nanosecond' as a part in the date_part function. If nanosecond is requested then the date_part will return the seconds, and smaller units, scaled to nanoseconds. This is consistent with the behaviour of 'millisecond' and 'microsecond'. In order to accomodate the required range of results, a request for 'nanosecond' will return a 64-bit integer, rather than a 32-bit integer as is returned for everything else (except 'epoch'). ## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes apache#123` indicates that this PR will close issue apache#123. --> - Closes apache#20671 ## Rationale for this change <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> The feature is a) useful & b) documented ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> Yes, some added and modified SLT tests. ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. --> Only in as much as the implementation now matches the documentation (for this specific case). --------- Co-authored-by: Andrew Lamb <[email protected]>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Support using 'nanosecond' as a part in the date_part function. If nanosecond is requested then the date_part will return the seconds, and smaller units, scaled to nanoseconds. This is consistent with the behaviour of 'millisecond' and 'microsecond'. In order to accomodate the required range of results, a request for 'nanosecond' will return a 64-bit integer, rather than a 32-bit integer as is returned for everything else (except 'epoch').
Which issue does this PR close?
Rationale for this change
The feature is a) useful & b) documented
What changes are included in this PR?
Are these changes tested?
Yes, some added and modified SLT tests.
Are there any user-facing changes?
Only in as much as the implementation now matches the documentation (for this specific case).