[CALCITE-6035] Unparse 'WITHIN GROUP' for BigQuery dialect to match BigQuery documentation #3466
Conversation
…igQuery documentation
| private static void unparseWithinGroup(SqlWriter writer, SqlCall call, int leftPrec, int rightPrec) { | ||
| assert call.operandCount() == 2; | ||
| call.operand(0).unparse(writer, 0, 0); | ||
| writer.keyword("OVER"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
so I think you're more familiar with these clauses than me, is it guaranteed that the WITHIN GROUP translates to BQ's OVER in every case? are they really just synonyms for each other, I mean
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So I detailed in this comment how Calcite currently only supports
select percentile_cont(0.5) within group (order by X)
so I want to say that for what is supported at this moment, it is sufficient
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ohhh ok. So if Calcite ended up supporting the partition by case (your input_2 from that comment), do you know if this would break?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Julian had a comment here about how we should approach the followup tickets
I think it won't work out of the box, there are things to figure out
We would still be parsing it as within_group in the parser, but want it to be handled differently in the validator.
questions to then consider: would we still use a SqlWithinGroupOperator? If yes, then that would be unparsed into "OVER" correctly. If not, this may have to change
core/src/test/java/org/apache/calcite/rel/rel2sql/RelToSqlConverterTest.java
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed! |
| @Test void testPercentileContWithinGroupClauseBigQuery() { | ||
| final String query = "select percentile_cont(0.5) WITHIN GROUP (ORDER BY `product_class_id`)\n" | ||
| + "from `foodmart`.`product`"; | ||
| final String expected = "SELECT PERCENTILE_CONT(0.5) OVER " |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the PERCENTILE_CONT function for BigQuery must have two arguments. I think this expected query would probably fail since the column isn't passed to the function directly as an argument
No description provided.