Skip to content

Conversation

@gyorfimi
Copy link
Contributor

@gyorfimi gyorfimi commented Jan 22, 2024

Fix #12285, #12305

Added IN and NOT_IN cases to the FilterOperand class and TransformOperandFactory classes. The PR is related to the 12285 bug: using of the IN expression in the CASE statement within the projection part of the SELECT multistage query. When this expression is used, the query execution fails with an IllegalStateException error, indicating that the function IN cannot be found.

…fix)

Added IN and NOT_IN cases to the FilterOperand class and TransformOperandFactory classes. The PR is related to the 12285 bug:  using of the IN expression in the CASE statement within the projection part of the SELECT multistage query. When this expression is used, the query execution fails with an IllegalStateException error, indicating that the function IN cannot be found.
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

Codecov Report

Attention: 21 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (ced6bc2) 61.51% compared to head (253f59d) 34.62%.

Files Patch % Lines
...query/runtime/operator/operands/FilterOperand.java 0.00% 17 Missing ⚠️
...ime/operator/operands/TransformOperandFactory.java 0.00% 4 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@              Coverage Diff              @@
##             master   #12305       +/-   ##
=============================================
- Coverage     61.51%   34.62%   -26.90%     
+ Complexity     1147      951      -196     
=============================================
  Files          2417     2341       -76     
  Lines        131584   127857     -3727     
  Branches      20314    19765      -549     
=============================================
- Hits          80939    44265    -36674     
- Misses        44716    80426    +35710     
+ Partials       5929     3166     -2763     
Flag Coverage Δ
custom-integration1 ?
integration <0.01% <0.00%> (ø)
integration1 <0.01% <0.00%> (ø)
integration2 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
java-11 ?
java-21 34.62% <0.00%> (-26.78%) ⬇️
skip-bytebuffers-false 34.60% <0.00%> (-26.90%) ⬇️
skip-bytebuffers-true 34.60% <0.00%> (-26.77%) ⬇️
temurin 34.62% <0.00%> (-26.90%) ⬇️
unittests 46.40% <0.00%> (-15.11%) ⬇️
unittests1 46.40% <0.00%> (-0.21%) ⬇️
unittests2 ?

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Copy link
Contributor

@walterddr walterddr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

thank you sir for the fix. could you add some test cases to
pinot-query-runtime/src/test/resources/queries/Case.json ?

@Jackie-Jiang Jackie-Jiang added the multi-stage Related to the multi-stage query engine label Feb 1, 2024
@Jackie-Jiang Jackie-Jiang merged commit 04cf96e into apache:master Feb 1, 2024
suyashpatel98 pushed a commit to suyashpatel98/pinot that referenced this pull request Feb 28, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

bugfix multi-stage Related to the multi-stage query engine

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Multistage query failure when select a CASE/IN expression

4 participants