Skip to content

Conversation

@yashmayya
Copy link
Contributor

@yashmayya yashmayya commented Oct 10, 2024

Edit: this is actually fixing a regression for the multi-stage query engine. Prior to #13573, the NULLIF function worked fine (only on the multi-stage engine, and not on the single-stage engine). Before that refactor, Pinot's operator table extended Calcite's SqlStdOperatorTable which has the SqlNullifFunction defined. Since it automatically rewrites calls to equivalent calls to CASE WHEN, this worked fine even though Pinot didn't have an actual implementation for NULLIF. However, the above linked PR updated Pinot's operator table to no longer extend Calcite's SqlStdOperatorTable, and instead manually register all the operators that Pinot actually has support for. Since Pinot didn't have an actual implementation for NULLIF, it was probably missed. This PR fixes the regression and also adds support for the function in the single-stage engine.

@yashmayya yashmayya added feature release-notes Referenced by PRs that need attention when compiling the next release notes labels Oct 10, 2024
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Oct 10, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 63.69%. Comparing base (59551e4) to head (f39daa7).
Report is 1171 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master   #14203      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     61.75%   63.69%   +1.93%     
- Complexity      207     1450    +1243     
============================================
  Files          2436     2622     +186     
  Lines        133233   144399   +11166     
  Branches      20636    22105    +1469     
============================================
+ Hits          82274    91969    +9695     
- Misses        44911    45632     +721     
- Partials       6048     6798     +750     
Flag Coverage Δ
custom-integration1 100.00% <ø> (+99.99%) ⬆️
integration 100.00% <ø> (+99.99%) ⬆️
integration1 100.00% <ø> (+99.99%) ⬆️
integration2 0.00% <ø> (ø)
java-11 34.34% <0.00%> (-27.37%) ⬇️
java-21 63.69% <100.00%> (+2.06%) ⬆️
skip-bytebuffers-false 63.68% <100.00%> (+1.93%) ⬆️
skip-bytebuffers-true 63.66% <100.00%> (+35.93%) ⬆️
temurin 63.69% <100.00%> (+1.93%) ⬆️
unittests 63.68% <100.00%> (+1.93%) ⬆️
unittests1 55.32% <100.00%> (+8.43%) ⬆️
unittests2 34.35% <0.00%> (+6.62%) ⬆️

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.

@yashmayya yashmayya marked this pull request as ready for review October 10, 2024 08:22
@yashmayya yashmayya added bugfix multi-stage Related to the multi-stage query engine labels Oct 10, 2024
@yashmayya
Copy link
Contributor Author

Fixes #14207

@Jackie-Jiang Jackie-Jiang merged commit 8177770 into apache:master Oct 10, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

bugfix feature multi-stage Related to the multi-stage query engine release-notes Referenced by PRs that need attention when compiling the next release notes

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants