refactor(expr): don't fallback to evaluation by row on error #14174
+188
−126
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Signed-off-by: Runji Wang <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Runji Wang <[email protected]>
BugenZhao
reviewed
Dec 26, 2023
Comment on lines
+106
to
+113
| Err(ExprError::Multiple(array, errors)) => { | ||
| for error in errors { | ||
| self.report.report(error); | ||
| } | ||
| array | ||
| } | ||
| Err(e) => { | ||
| self.report.report(e); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we ensure that (almost) all Expressions return Multiple? Otherwise, all rows will be padded with NULL once there's an error.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes I have checked that. The remaining expressions not generated by #[function] are not evaluated row by row, except for UDF, which I will fix later.
| @@ -34,7 +34,8 @@ use crate::{bail, ExprError, Result}; | |||
|
|
|||
| /// Build an expression from protobuf. | |||
| pub fn build_from_prost(prost: &ExprNode) -> Result<BoxedExpression> { | |||
| ExprBuilder::new_strict().build(prost) | |||
| let expr = ExprBuilder::new_strict().build(prost)?; | |||
| Ok(Strict::new(expr).boxed()) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we move this step into the ExprBuilder?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This wrapper is only needed at the top level. So I think no need to move it into the builder?
TennyZhuang
reviewed
Dec 27, 2023
| impl MultiExprError { | ||
| /// Returns the first error. | ||
| pub fn first(self) -> ExprError { | ||
| self.0.into_vec().into_iter().next().expect("first error") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| self.0.into_vec().into_iter().next().expect("first error") | |
| self.0.into_iter().next().expect("first error") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If removed, the item would be &ExprError. Seems to be a historical problem rust-lang/rust#59878
TennyZhuang
reviewed
Dec 27, 2023
TennyZhuang
reviewed
Dec 27, 2023
TennyZhuang
approved these changes
Dec 27, 2023
Signed-off-by: Runji Wang <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I hereby agree to the terms of the RisingWave Labs, Inc. Contributor License Agreement.
What's changed and what's your intention?
resolve #14027 and replace #14147
This PR introduces a
MultiExprErrorto collect function errors by each row. TheNonStrictwrapper can identify this error and return partial results without falling back to evaluation row by row.Checklist
./risedev check(or alias,./risedev c)Documentation