[SPARK-34012][SQL] Keep behavior consistent when conf spark.sql.legacy.parser.havingWithoutGroupByAsWhere is true with migration guide
#31039
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
Contributor
Author
|
FYI @maropu @cloud-fan @viirya |
|
Kubernetes integration test starting |
maropu
reviewed
Jan 5, 2021
| if (conf.getConf(SQLConf.LEGACY_HAVING_WITHOUT_GROUP_BY_AS_WHERE)) { | ||
| // If the legacy conf is set, treat HAVING without GROUP BY as WHERE. | ||
| withHavingClause(havingClause, createProject()) | ||
| withHavingClauseAsWhere(havingClause, createProject()) |
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could you inline this func here?
DONE
Member
|
Could you file a new jira for this issue? |
AngersZhuuuu
changed the title
spark.sql.legacy.parser.havingWithoutGroupByAsWhere is true with migration guide
Contributor
Author
DONE |
|
Kubernetes integration test status failure |
cloud-fan
approved these changes
Jan 5, 2021
Contributor
cloud-fan
left a comment
cloud-fan
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
good catch! Which version did we break this legacy config?
|
Kubernetes integration test starting |
Contributor
Author
SInce #28294 backport to 2.4 too(#28294 (comment)), impacted version. should be 2.4/3.0/3.1/3.2 |
maropu
approved these changes
Jan 5, 2021
|
Kubernetes integration test status success |
|
Test build #133673 has finished for PR 31039 at commit
|
|
Test build #133682 has finished for PR 31039 at commit
|
viirya
approved these changes
Jan 5, 2021
maropu
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 5, 2021
…cy.parser.havingWithoutGroupByAsWhere` is true with migration guide ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? In #22696 we support HAVING without GROUP BY means global aggregate But since we treat having as Filter before, in this way will cause a lot of analyze error, after #28294 we use `UnresolvedHaving` to instead `Filter` to solve such problem, but break origin logical about treat `SELECT 1 FROM range(10) HAVING true` as `SELECT 1 FROM range(10) WHERE true` . This PR fix this issue and add UT. ### Why are the changes needed? Keep consistent behavior of migration guide. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No ### How was this patch tested? added UT Closes #31039 from AngersZhuuuu/SPARK-25780-Follow-up. Authored-by: angerszhu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Takeshi Yamamuro <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit e279ed3) Signed-off-by: Takeshi Yamamuro <[email protected]>
Member
|
GA passed, so merged to master/branch-3.1. Could you make PRs for backporting this fix into branch-3.0/2.4? Thanks! |
This was referenced Jan 6, 2021
maropu
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 6, 2021
…legacy.parser.havingWithoutGroupByAsWhere` is true with migration guide ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? In #22696 we support HAVING without GROUP BY means global aggregate But since we treat having as Filter before, in this way will cause a lot of analyze error, after #28294 we use `UnresolvedHaving` to instead `Filter` to solve such problem, but break origin logical about treat `SELECT 1 FROM range(10) HAVING true` as `SELECT 1 FROM range(10) WHERE true` . This PR fix this issue and add UT. NOTE: This backport comes from #31039 ### Why are the changes needed? Keep consistent behavior of migration guide. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No ### How was this patch tested? added UT Closes #31050 from AngersZhuuuu/SPARK-34012-2.4. Authored-by: angerszhu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Takeshi Yamamuro <[email protected]>
maropu
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 6, 2021
…legacy.parser.havingWithoutGroupByAsWhere` is true with migration guide ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? In #22696 we support HAVING without GROUP BY means global aggregate But since we treat having as Filter before, in this way will cause a lot of analyze error, after #28294 we use `UnresolvedHaving` to instead `Filter` to solve such problem, but break origin logical about treat `SELECT 1 FROM range(10) HAVING true` as `SELECT 1 FROM range(10) WHERE true` . This PR fix this issue and add UT. NOTE: This backport comes from #31039 ### Why are the changes needed? Keep consistent behavior of migration guide. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No ### How was this patch tested? added UT Closes #31049 from AngersZhuuuu/SPARK-34012-3.0. Authored-by: angerszhu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Takeshi Yamamuro <[email protected]>
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.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
In #22696 we support HAVING without GROUP BY means global aggregate
But since we treat having as Filter before, in this way will cause a lot of analyze error, after #28294 we use
UnresolvedHavingto insteadFilterto solve such problem, but break origin logical about treatSELECT 1 FROM range(10) HAVING trueasSELECT 1 FROM range(10) WHERE true.This PR fix this issue and add UT.
Why are the changes needed?
Keep consistent behavior of migration guide.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No
How was this patch tested?
added UT