[jira] [Commented] (CALCITE-1172) Add rule to flatten two Aggregate operators into one

["Haisheng Yuan (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>]

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-1172?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16785092#comment-16785092 ] 

Haisheng Yuan commented on CALCITE-1172:
----------------------------------------

Hi [~julianhyde] I have opened a pull request to resolve this issue https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/1087. Can you take a look at the way I use SqlSplittableAggFunction is correct or not? Thanks!

> Add rule to flatten two Aggregate operators into one
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CALCITE-1172
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-1172
>             Project: Calcite
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Julian Hyde
>            Priority: Major
>              Labels: pull-request-available
>          Time Spent: 10m
>  Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> If there is an Aggregate on top of an Aggregate, and the top aggregate's group key is a subset of the lower aggregate's group key, and the aggregates are expansions of rollups, then a rule would convert into a single aggregate.
> For example, SUM of SUM becomes SUM; SUM of COUNT becomes COUNT; MAX of MAX becomes MAX; MIN of MIN becomes MIN. AVG of AVG would not match, nor would COUNT of COUNT.
> The rule would convert
> {noformat}
> Aggregate({x}, SUM(c1), MIN(c2), MAX(c3))
>   Aggregate({x, y}, SUM(c1), MIN(c2), MAX(c3))
>     R
> {noformat}
> into
> {noformat}
> Aggregate({x}, SUM(c1), MIN(c2), MAX(c3))
>   R
> {noformat}
> The rule would not work if there was anything between the two {{Aggregate}} operators.
> The implementation would use {{SqlSplittableAggFunction}} to deduce rollups, and in fact would be practically the converse of {{AggregateExchangeTransposeRule}} proposed in CALCITE-907.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)