Uploaded image for project: 'Calcite'
  1. Calcite
  2. CALCITE-3319

AssertionError for ReduceDecimalsRule

    XMLWordPrintableJSON

    Details

    • Type: Bug
    • Status: Closed
    • Priority: Major
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Affects Version/s: None
    • Fix Version/s: 1.22.0
    • Component/s: None

      Description

      When trying to use ReduceDecimalsRule, I got

      java.lang.AssertionError
      	at org.apache.calcite.rel.rules.ReduceDecimalsRule$DecimalShuttle.visitCall(ReduceDecimalsRule.java:159)
      	at org.apache.calcite.rel.rules.ReduceDecimalsRule$DecimalShuttle.visitCall(ReduceDecimalsRule.java:124)
      	at org.apache.calcite.rex.RexCall.accept(RexCall.java:191)
      	at org.apache.calcite.rex.RexProgramBuilder.add(RexProgramBuilder.java:653)
      	at org.apache.calcite.rex.RexProgramBuilder.create(RexProgramBuilder.java:601)
      	at org.apache.calcite.rel.rules.ReduceDecimalsRule.onMatch(ReduceDecimalsRule.java:103)
      	at org.apache.calcite.plan.AbstractRelOptPlanner.fireRule(AbstractRelOptPlanner.java:319)
      	at org.apache.calcite.plan.hep.HepPlanner.applyRule(HepPlanner.java:560)
      	at org.apache.calcite.plan.hep.HepPlanner.applyRules(HepPlanner.java:419)
      	at org.apache.calcite.plan.hep.HepPlanner.executeInstruction(HepPlanner.java:256)
      	at org.apache.calcite.plan.hep.HepInstruction$RuleInstance.execute(HepInstruction.java:127)
      	at org.apache.calcite.plan.hep.HepPlanner.executeProgram(HepPlanner.java:215)
      	at org.apache.calcite.plan.hep.HepPlanner.findBestExp(HepPlanner.java:202)
      

      I read the code, and found this.

      List<RexNode> newOperands = apply(call.getOperands());
            if (true) {
              // FIXME: Operands are now immutable. Create a new call with
              //   new operands?
              throw new AssertionError();
            }
      

      After remove this logic, the rel below

      LogicalCalc(expr#0..7=[{inputs}], expr#8=[1.01E1:DOUBLE], expr#9=[15], expr#10=[+($t8, $t9)], expr#11=[>($t5, $t10)], proj#0..7=[{exprs}], $condition=[$t11])
        LogicalTableScan(table=[[scott, EMP]])
      

      can be translated into

      LogicalCalc(expr#0..7=[{inputs}], expr#8=[Reinterpret($t5)], expr#9=[CAST($t8):DOUBLE], expr#10=[1E2:DOUBLE], expr#11=[/INT($t9, $t10)], expr#12=[1.01E1:DOUBLE], expr#13=[15], expr#14=[+($t12, $t13)], expr#15=[>($t11, $t14)], proj#0..7=[{exprs}], $condition=[$t15])
        LogicalTableScan(table=[[scott, EMP]])
      

      So is this rule not ready for use now, or we should just remove this logic?

        Attachments

          Issue Links

            Activity

              People

              • Assignee:
                Unassigned
                Reporter:
                yanlin-Lynn Wang Yanlin
              • Votes:
                0 Vote for this issue
                Watchers:
                4 Start watching this issue

                Dates

                • Created:
                  Updated:
                  Resolved:

                  Time Tracking

                  Estimated:
                  Original Estimate - Not Specified
                  Not Specified
                  Remaining:
                  Remaining Estimate - 0h
                  0h
                  Logged:
                  Time Spent - 1h 20m
                  1h 20m