-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29k
[SPARK-24012][SQL] Union of map and other compatible column #21100
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
Changes from 6 commits
a422a7f
cb883d9
19b5c6a
0845739
670824f
8cb240f
4b1ce36
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -35,6 +35,17 @@ FROM (SELECT col AS col | |
| SELECT col | ||
| FROM p3) T1) T2; | ||
|
|
||
| -- SPARK-24012 Union of map and other compatible columns. | ||
| SELECT map(1, 2), 'str' | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. shall we also add a test for array? |
||
| UNION ALL | ||
| SELECT map(1, 2, 3, NULL), 1; | ||
|
|
||
| -- SPARK-24012 Union of array and other compatible columns. | ||
| SELECT array(1, 2), 'str' | ||
| UNION ALL | ||
| SELECT array(1, 2, 3, NULL), 1; | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| -- Clean-up | ||
| DROP VIEW IF EXISTS t1; | ||
| DROP VIEW IF EXISTS t2; | ||
|
|
||
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -896,6 +896,25 @@ class SQLQuerySuite extends QueryTest with SharedSQLContext { | |
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| test("SPARK-24012 Union of map and other compatible columns") { | ||
|
||
| checkAnswer( | ||
| sql( | ||
| """ | ||
| |SELECT map(1, 2), 'str' | ||
| |UNION ALL | ||
| |SELECT map(1, 2, 3, NULL), 1""".stripMargin), | ||
|
||
| Row(Map(1 -> 2), "str") :: Row(Map(1 -> 2, 3 -> null), "1") :: Nil | ||
| ) | ||
| checkAnswer( | ||
| sql( | ||
| """ | ||
| |SELECT array(1), 'str' | ||
| |UNION ALL | ||
| |SELECT array(1, 2, 3, NULL), 1""".stripMargin), | ||
| Row(Array(1), "str") :: Row(Array(1, 2, 3, null), "1") :: Nil | ||
| ) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| test("EXCEPT") { | ||
| checkAnswer( | ||
| sql("SELECT * FROM lowerCaseData EXCEPT SELECT * FROM upperCaseData"), | ||
|
|
||
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.
BTW, I think we should do the same thing in
findWiderTypeForTwoto cover some corner cases such as decimal or string promotion within keys and values .. ? and seems #21100 (comment) suggested the same thing ..?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.
This is something we should figure out: why
findWiderTypeForTwoonly take care of array type? seems all complex types should be handled there, especially if it follows Hive's behavior.Anyway it's orthogonal to
findTightestCommonType, they are used for different operators.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.
Yea, I was just wondering while reading it. However, doesn't that mean we don't do type widening for nested types in the same way? I was thinking we should do the same type widening for nested types too.
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, I was thinking we should do that in both places in
findTightestCommonTypeandfindWiderTypeForTwo. Otherwise, the nested types in struct, map or array won't do, for example, decimal or string promotion.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.
Sure, it's orthogonal. Yup, I was just wondering. I am okay to leave this out of this PR.
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.
Ooops, I misread your comment. Sorry. I was talking about the same thing.
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.
We also need to look into
findTightestCommonType. Currently we are just very conservative and only allow nullability change for complex types infindTightestCommonType. We need to take a look at other systems and see what they do.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 agree with that given past discussions - I didn't mean we should change something now .. but was just wondering.