[branch-50] Backport Fix bug in LimitPushPastWindows (#18029) #18107
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
github-actions
bot
added
logical-expr
26 tasks
alamb
changed the title
|
@avantgardnerio -- since this is on the coralogix fork, I can't push changes to this PR to get a clean CI run, I think you need to
|
* Add test * Use ROWS instead of RANGE * Fix a test * progress * window.slt like master * passing existing tests * Break out window limit tests * LimitEffect * fix a bug * repartitions * refactor * refactor * fmt * remove casual * two phased approach * refactor into context * refactor * refactor * refactor * remove comments * remove deps * Fix NthValue * aggregates * ranking functions * More tests * Max lead test * More tests, JIC * More tests, JIC * Notes * Notes-- (cherry picked from commit 4e69241)
avantgardnerio
force-pushed
the
bg_backport
branch
from
13ffb6d to
88dbe0b
Compare
|
The tests are failing because the test file seems to have been removed? Why would that happen in a patch fix branch? Can it come back? |
|
I tracked down the submodule update. Let's see if it breaks other things. |
akurmustafa
reviewed
Oct 19, 2025
| 03)----BoundedWindowAggExec: wdw=[sum(test.c2) FILTER (WHERE test.c2 >= Int64(2)) ORDER BY [test.c1 ASC NULLS LAST, test.c2 ASC NULLS LAST] ROWS BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW: Field { name: "sum(test.c2) FILTER (WHERE test.c2 >= Int64(2)) ORDER BY [test.c1 ASC NULLS LAST, test.c2 ASC NULLS LAST] ROWS BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW", data_type: Int64, nullable: true, dict_id: 0, dict_is_ordered: false, metadata: {} }, frame: ROWS BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW, sum(test.c2) FILTER (WHERE test.c2 >= Int64(2) AND test.c2 < Int64(4) AND test.c1 > Int64(0)) ORDER BY [test.c1 ASC NULLS LAST, test.c2 ASC NULLS LAST] ROWS BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW: Field { name: "sum(test.c2) FILTER (WHERE test.c2 >= Int64(2) AND test.c2 < Int64(4) AND test.c1 > Int64(0)) ORDER BY [test.c1 ASC NULLS LAST, test.c2 ASC NULLS LAST] ROWS BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW", data_type: Int64, nullable: true, dict_id: 0, dict_is_ordered: false, metadata: {} }, frame: ROWS BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW, count(test.c2) FILTER (WHERE test.c2 >= Int64(2)) ORDER BY [test.c1 ASC NULLS LAST, test.c2 ASC NULLS LAST] ROWS BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW: Field { name: "count(test.c2) FILTER (WHERE test.c2 >= Int64(2)) ORDER BY [test.c1 ASC NULLS LAST, test.c2 ASC NULLS LAST] ROWS BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW", data_type: Int64, nullable: false, dict_id: 0, dict_is_ordered: false, metadata: {} }, frame: ROWS BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW, array_agg(test.c2) FILTER (WHERE test.c2 >= Int64(2)) ORDER BY [test.c1 ASC NULLS LAST, test.c2 ASC NULLS LAST] ROWS BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW: Field { name: "array_agg(test.c2) FILTER (WHERE test.c2 >= Int64(2)) ORDER BY [test.c1 ASC NULLS LAST, test.c2 ASC NULLS LAST] ROWS BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW", data_type: List(Field { name: "item", data_type: Int64, nullable: true, dict_id: 0, dict_is_ordered: false, metadata: {} }), nullable: true, dict_id: 0, dict_is_ordered: false, metadata: {} }, frame: ROWS BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW, array_agg(test.c2) FILTER (WHERE test.c2 >= Int64(2) AND test.c2 < Int64(4) AND test.c1 > Int64(0)) ORDER BY [test.c1 ASC NULLS LAST, test.c2 ASC NULLS LAST] ROWS BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW: Field { name: "array_agg(test.c2) FILTER (WHERE test.c2 >= Int64(2) AND test.c2 < Int64(4) AND test.c1 > Int64(0)) ORDER BY [test.c1 ASC NULLS LAST, test.c2 ASC NULLS LAST] ROWS BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW", data_type: List(Field { name: "item", data_type: Int64, nullable: true, dict_id: 0, dict_is_ordered: false, metadata: {} }), nullable: true, dict_id: 0, dict_is_ordered: false, metadata: {} }, frame: ROWS BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW], mode=[Sorted] | ||
| 04)------SortPreservingMergeExec: [c1@2 ASC NULLS LAST, c2@3 ASC NULLS LAST] | ||
| 05)--------SortExec: expr=[c1@2 ASC NULLS LAST, c2@3 ASC NULLS LAST], preserve_partitioning=[true] | ||
| 04)------SortPreservingMergeExec: [c1@2 ASC NULLS LAST, c2@3 ASC NULLS LAST], fetch=5 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
New plan is better and correct!.
akurmustafa
approved these changes
Oct 19, 2025
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The diff is almost same with the PR. I checked the additional plan change in window.slt. New plan is better and correct. Thanks you @avantgardnerio for this PR.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 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.
Which issue does this PR close?
50.3.0(minor) #18072.Rationale for this change
Return correct results
What changes are included in this PR?
A fix for the PushPastLimits rule to accommodate the special needs of
LEAD()Are these changes tested?
An 800 line file of slts was added. There are never enough.
Are there any user-facing changes?
Queries using
lead()with alimitshould return correct results again (but also go fast)