Skip to content

test: re-enable window function over parquet with forced collisions #11939

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
alamb merged 2 commits into from
Aug 14, 2024
Merged

test: re-enable window function over parquet with forced collisions #11939

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
d53ebbb
test: window function over parquet with forced collisions
korowa Aug 11, 2024
feba511
trigger CI
korowa Aug 11, 2024
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
38 changes: 18 additions & 20 deletions datafusion/sqllogictest/test_files/parquet.slt
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -251,27 +251,25 @@ SELECT COUNT(*) FROM timestamp_with_tz;
----
131072

# FIXME(#TODO) fails with feature `force_hash_collisions`
# https://github.com/apache/datafusion/issues/11660
# Perform the query:
Copy link
Contributor

@comphead comphead Aug 13, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
# Perform the query:

Copy link
Contributor

@comphead comphead Aug 13, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Would be great to add some comments why test is so specific

Copy link
Contributor

@alamb alamb Aug 14, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree better comments would be nice -- however I don't think this PR makes the comment any more/less cryptic, so I don't think we should hold it for better comments.

Maybe we can improve the comments as a future PR

# query IPT
# SELECT
# count,
# LAG(timestamp, 1) OVER (ORDER BY timestamp),
# arrow_typeof(LAG(timestamp, 1) OVER (ORDER BY timestamp))
# FROM timestamp_with_tz
# LIMIT 10;
# ----
# 0 NULL Timestamp(Millisecond, Some("UTC"))
# 0 2014-08-27T14:00:00Z Timestamp(Millisecond, Some("UTC"))
# 0 2014-08-27T14:00:00Z Timestamp(Millisecond, Some("UTC"))
# 4 2014-08-27T14:00:00Z Timestamp(Millisecond, Some("UTC"))
# 0 2014-08-27T14:00:00Z Timestamp(Millisecond, Some("UTC"))
# 0 2014-08-27T14:00:00Z Timestamp(Millisecond, Some("UTC"))
# 0 2014-08-27T14:00:00Z Timestamp(Millisecond, Some("UTC"))
# 14 2014-08-27T14:00:00Z Timestamp(Millisecond, Some("UTC"))
# 0 2014-08-27T14:00:00Z Timestamp(Millisecond, Some("UTC"))
# 0 2014-08-27T14:00:00Z Timestamp(Millisecond, Some("UTC"))
query IPT
SELECT
count,
LAG(timestamp, 1) OVER (ORDER BY timestamp),
arrow_typeof(LAG(timestamp, 1) OVER (ORDER BY timestamp))
FROM timestamp_with_tz
LIMIT 10;
----
0 NULL Timestamp(Millisecond, Some("UTC"))
0 2014-08-27T14:00:00Z Timestamp(Millisecond, Some("UTC"))
0 2014-08-27T14:00:00Z Timestamp(Millisecond, Some("UTC"))
4 2014-08-27T14:00:00Z Timestamp(Millisecond, Some("UTC"))
0 2014-08-27T14:00:00Z Timestamp(Millisecond, Some("UTC"))
0 2014-08-27T14:00:00Z Timestamp(Millisecond, Some("UTC"))
0 2014-08-27T14:00:00Z Timestamp(Millisecond, Some("UTC"))
14 2014-08-27T14:00:00Z Timestamp(Millisecond, Some("UTC"))
0 2014-08-27T14:00:00Z Timestamp(Millisecond, Some("UTC"))
0 2014-08-27T14:00:00Z Timestamp(Millisecond, Some("UTC"))

# Test config listing_table_ignore_subdirectory:

Expand Down