Skip to content

Conversation

@rxin
Copy link
Contributor

@rxin rxin commented Apr 14, 2015

For example, "a.b" should match a column named a.b.

…literals.

For example, "a.b" should match a column named `a.b`.
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

note @marmbrus our new resolver semantics breaks this test. Not sure how important it is.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The more I think about this, the more I am worried that we can't make a change this large. There is no way to express self join queries if we don't handle . in column names. We are also going to break lots of existing user code...

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Apr 14, 2015

Test build #30221 has finished for PR 5505 at commit 36f63a4.

  • This patch fails Spark unit tests.
  • This patch merges cleanly.
  • This patch adds no public classes.
  • This patch does not change any dependencies.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

and @liancheng I had to disable this test as well since it used "tablename.columnname".

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I guess it should be OK to disable or even remove this test now, since now we check for invalid field names explicitly and suggest users to add aliases. See #5263.

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Apr 14, 2015

Test build #30227 has finished for PR 5505 at commit a5f6983.

  • This patch passes all tests.
  • This patch merges cleanly.
  • This patch adds no public classes.
  • This patch does not change any dependencies.

@rxin
Copy link
Contributor Author

rxin commented Apr 15, 2015

I discussed with michael offline -- given this would break self-join, we've decided to treat dot as a special case.

@rxin rxin closed this Apr 15, 2015
@cloud-fan
Copy link
Contributor

As #5638 handled self join correctly, should we reopen this PR?

@rxin
Copy link
Contributor Author

rxin commented Apr 27, 2015

That one actually doesn't handle most self join cases, since very often in self joins you join on different keys.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants