SQL: Fix issue with complex HAVING and GROUP BY ordinal #36594
Merged
Conversation
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
Collaborator
|
Pinging @elastic/es-search |
When trying to analyze a HAVING condition, we crate a temp Aggregate Plan which wasn't created correctly (missing the expressions from the SELECT clause) and as a result the ordinal (1, 2, etc) in the GROUP BY couldn't be resolved correctly. Also after successfully analyzing the HAVING condition, still the original plan was returned. Fixes: elastic#36059
matriv
changed the title
Member
|
Maybe add a description of the approach taken and what failed ? |
costin
approved these changes
Dec 14, 2018
|
|
||
| for (Rule<?, TreeType> rule : batch.rules) { | ||
| if (log.isTraceEnabled()) { | ||
| log.trace("Trying to apply rule {}", rule); |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"About to apply rule" - trying implies that it might not be applied.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Which can be the case... But anyway I prefer the "About to apply rule", thx.
astefan
approved these changes
Dec 14, 2018
|
|
||
| public void testGroupByHavingNonGrouped() { | ||
| assertEquals("1:48: Cannot filter by non-grouped column [int], expected [text]", | ||
| assertEquals("1:48: Cannot filter HAVING on non-aggregate [int]; consider using WHERE instead", |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why are we losing here the text proposal? Can we still have it?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thx for catching it, I had it in mind but forgot to open a relevant issue for that.
Here it is: #36693
| } | ||
|
|
||
| public void testGroupByAndHavingWithFunctionOnTopOfAggregation() { | ||
| LogicalPlan p = plan("SELECT keyword, max(int) FROM test GROUP BY 1 HAVING " + "abs(max(int)) > 10"); |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
HAVING " + "abs(max(int)) - one String only, no need to split it in half.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yep, was some leftover
matriv
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 17, 2018
When trying to analyse a HAVING condition, we crate a temp Aggregate Plan which wasn't created correctly (missing the expressions from the SELECT clause) and as a result the ordinal (1, 2, etc) in the GROUP BY couldn't be resolved correctly. Also after successfully analysing the HAVING condition, still the original plan was returned. Fixes: #36059
Contributor
Author
|
Backported to |
matriv
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 17, 2018
When trying to analyse a HAVING condition, we crate a temp Aggregate Plan which wasn't created correctly (missing the expressions from the SELECT clause) and as a result the ordinal (1, 2, etc) in the GROUP BY couldn't be resolved correctly. Also after successfully analysing the HAVING condition, still the original plan was returned. Fixes: #36059
Contributor
Author
|
Backported to |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
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.
When trying to analyze a HAVING condition, we crate a temp Aggregate
Plan which wasn't created correctly (missing the expressions from the
SELECT clause) and as a result the ordinal (1, 2, etc) in the GROUP BY
couldn't be resolved correctly.
Also after successfully analyzing the HAVING condition, still the
original plan was returned.
Fixes: #36059