Adds support for FULL/RIGHT OUTER JOIN and improves performance of JOINs #1295
Conversation
Conformance comparison report
Number passing in both: 5384 Number failing in both: 434 Number passing in Base (dccab37) but now fail: 0 Number failing in Base (dccab37) but now pass: 0 |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## partiql-eval #1295 +/- ##
===============================================
Coverage ? 49.28%
Complexity ? 1046
===============================================
Files ? 166
Lines ? 13392
Branches ? 2500
===============================================
Hits ? 6600
Misses ? 6135
Partials ? 657
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
| if (previousLhs != null && previousRhs != null) { | ||
| previousRhs!!.padNull() | ||
| val newRecord = previousLhs!! + previousRhs!! | ||
| previousLhs = null | ||
| previousRhs = null | ||
| return newRecord | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What about checking the join condition?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Great catch! Updated and I added a test to use TRUE as the condition.
| @@ -471,10 +471,13 @@ public abstract class StructValue<T : PartiQLValue> : PartiQLValue, Sequence<Pai | |||
|
|
|||
| public abstract val fields: Sequence<Pair<String, T>>? | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I kind of think this should just be a list or array. Array makes more sense honestly because of fixed size rather than an immutable List, but either way not a sequence
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe you're tackling this in your PR for modifying PartiQL Value.
| } | ||
|
|
||
| @OptIn(PartiQLValueExperimental::class) | ||
| abstract fun getOutputRecord(result: Boolean, lhs: Record, rhs: Record): Record? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Relevant Issues
Description
BagValues. Before,BagValuesweren't taking into account being unordered, so I grouped and counted the elements for equality. I also needed to updateStructValuesto allow forhashCode. I essentially delegated the fields of a struct to some private lazily instantiated_fieldsvariable.Other Information
Updated Unreleased Section in CHANGELOG: NO
Any backward-incompatible changes? NO
Any new external dependencies? NO
Do your changes comply with the Contributing Guidelines
and Code Style Guidelines? YES
License Information
By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.