-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 28.9k
[SPARK-8279][SQL]Add math function round #6938
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
|
Jenkins, add to whitelist. |
|
ok to test |
|
Test build #35467 has finished for PR 6938 at commit
|
|
Test build #35469 has finished for PR 6938 at commit
|
|
duplicated with #6836? |
|
@chenghao-intel, Yep, not aware there are two JIRAs for |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actually we support multiple constructors now in expression, see https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/6806/files#diff-d788f93e29b4d25cdd7d60328587678bR229
|
As most of issues that I raised is solved in #6836, do you mind jump there and give some comments? |
|
@chenghao-intel, I think the main difference between this and #6836 is whether to make |
|
Test build #35521 has finished for PR 6938 at commit
|
|
Yes, #6836 follows the Hive's |
|
Oh, I think there exists misunderstood of the Therefore, I preserve the dataType of |
|
Oh, sorry, you did use the |
|
Test build #35539 has finished for PR 6938 at commit
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
depends on child.nullable || scala.nullable?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
probably more than that, Hive support String ,Double.NaN, Double.Infinity as input, all of these would result in null result.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
OK, let's say if the both children are literals e.g. Literal(123.0, FloatType) and Literal(1. IntegerType), still be nullable?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
it is not the end of the world to have nullable be more conservative, since it is technically correct to be nullable. however, if there is a way to do a more accurate way to determine nullability, we should do that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The nullable will be great useful in the expression optimization, we'd better handle it properly.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I mean nullable is sometimes determined at runtime, a not null string, double.NaN is not null themselves, but would eval to null in Round.
|
Test build #35555 has finished for PR 6938 at commit
|
|
Test build #35660 has finished for PR 6938 at commit
|
|
@chenghao-intel , refactored |
|
Test build #37221 has finished for PR 6938 at commit
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
i don't think you need this
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
i -> scale
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I was also using i for array index here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ok - can you at least move bdResults closer to this loop?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
OK
|
OK I'm going to merge this. Please submit a patch to fix the minor comments. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
you can remove this, since the expression is already named Round
|
Test build #37326 has finished for PR 6938 at commit
|
JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-8279