[jira] [Issue Comment Deleted] (CALCITE-3505) Infinite matching of FilterProjectTransposeRule causes stackoverflow

["Jin Xing (Jira)" <ji...@apache.org>]

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-3505?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Jin Xing updated CALCITE-3505:
------------------------------
    Comment: was deleted

(was: Currently, Calcite checks whether to skip a rule match by [link|#L520]]. But it only checks the cycle along the path of rule operands. In this case the cycle exists but longer than the path of operands.

[https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/855] refines and checks cycle to include input of the operands. But I think it might be not enough. Think that there are three RelSubsets in the cycle  and the operands length is 2. 

Intuitively I think there are two approaches to resolve this issue.
 # Ban the cycles. I will go with [~julianhyde] in CALCITE-2223 and aggree that we will lose a lot by this approach. Actually cycle can happen very easily – RelSubset which contains an identity Project will reference itself.
 # Remember the matching history – – if a group of nodes was matched before by a certain rule, there's no need to do the matching again.)

> Infinite matching of FilterProjectTransposeRule causes stackoverflow
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CALCITE-3505
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-3505
>             Project: Calcite
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: core
>            Reporter: Jin Xing
>            Priority: Major
>         Attachments: graphviz.svg
>
>
> Run ScannableTableTest#testProjectableFilterableTableJoin with minor change to reproduce
> {code:java}
> @Test public void testProjectableFilterableTableJoin() throws Exception {
>   final StringBuilder buf = new StringBuilder();
>   final String explain = "PLAN="
>       + "EnumerableHashJoin(condition=[=($0, $3)], joinType=[inner])\n"
>       + "  EnumerableInterpreter\n"
>       + "    BindableTableScan(table=[[s, b1]], filters=[[=($0, 10)]])\n"
>       + "  EnumerableInterpreter\n"
>       + "    BindableTableScan(table=[[s, b2]], filters=[[=($0, 10)]])";
>   CalciteAssert.that()
>           .with(
>             newSchema("s",
>                 Pair.of("b1", new BeatlesProjectableFilterableTable(buf, true)),
>                 Pair.of("b2", new BeatlesProjectableFilterableTable(buf, true))))
>           .query("select * from \"s\".\"b1\", \"s\".\"b2\" "
>                   + "where \"s\".\"b1\".\"i\" = 10 and \"s\".\"b2\".\"i\" = 10 "
>                   + "and \"s\".\"b1\".\"i\" = \"s\".\"b2\".\"i\"")
>           .withHook(Hook.PLANNER, (Consumer<RelOptPlanner>) planner -> {
>             planner.removeRule(EnumerableRules.ENUMERABLE_MERGE_JOIN_RULE);
>           })
>       .explainContains(explain);
> }
> {code}
> This test has nothing to do with ENUMERABLE_MERGE_JOIN_RULE, but if we disable it with planner hook, stackoverflow happens;
> I debugged and found that FilterProjectTransposeRule is matched infinitely but not sure the root cause.
>  
>  



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)