Skip to content

Conversation

chenkovsky
Copy link
Contributor

https://spark.apache.org/docs/latest/sql-ref-syntax-qry-select-pivot.html

currently this sql is not supported.

SELECT * FROM person
    PIVOT (
        SUM(age) AS a, AVG(class) AS c
        FOR (name, age) IN (('John', 30) AS c1, ('Mike', 40) AS c2)
    );

src/ast/query.rs Outdated
table: Box<TableFactor>,
aggregate_functions: Vec<ExprWithAlias>, // Function expression
value_column: Vec<Ident>,
value_column: Vec<Expr>, // Expr is a identifier or a compound identifier
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
value_column: Vec<Expr>, // Expr is a identifier or a compound identifier
value_column: Vec<Expr>,

Comment on lines 10933 to 10936
assert_eq!(
verified_stmt(sql_with_multiple_value_column).to_string(),
sql_with_multiple_value_column
);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

hmm this assertion is probably not needed, I think verified_stmt already does the same assertion

Comment on lines 13843 to 13849
let value_column = if self.peek_token_ref().token == Token::LParen {
self.parse_parenthesized_compound_identifier_list(Mandatory, false)?
} else {
vec![Expr::CompoundIdentifier(
self.parse_period_separated(|p| p.parse_identifier())?,
)]
};
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

similar to unpivot can we call parse_expr directly here?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

no, we cannot do it here. (name, age) IN (('John', 30) AS c1, ('Mike', 40) AS c2) will be parsed as an expr.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ah right that makes sense, I think we can do something this instead to reuse existing capabilities of the parser?

let value_column = if self.peek_token_ref().token == Token::LParen {
    self.parse_parenthesized_column_list_inner(Mandatory, false, |p| {
         p.parse_subexpr(self.dialect.prec_value(Precedence::Between))
     })?
} else {
    vec![self.parse_subexpr(self.dialect.prec_value(Precedence::Between))?]
};

Comment on lines 13843 to 13849
let value_column = if self.peek_token_ref().token == Token::LParen {
self.parse_parenthesized_compound_identifier_list(Mandatory, false)?
} else {
vec![Expr::CompoundIdentifier(
self.parse_period_separated(|p| p.parse_identifier())?,
)]
};
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ah right that makes sense, I think we can do something this instead to reuse existing capabilities of the parser?

let value_column = if self.peek_token_ref().token == Token::LParen {
    self.parse_parenthesized_column_list_inner(Mandatory, false, |p| {
         p.parse_subexpr(self.dialect.prec_value(Precedence::Between))
     })?
} else {
    vec![self.parse_subexpr(self.dialect.prec_value(Precedence::Between))?]
};

alias: None
}],
value_column: vec![Ident::new("year")],
value_column: vec![Expr::CompoundIdentifier(vec![Ident::new("year")])],
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

hmm heads up that this representation wouldn't be ideal - a compound identifier would be expected to have more than one ident in it

}),
aggregate_functions: vec![
expected_function("a", None),
expected_function("b", Some("t")),
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

can we add tests to demonstrate the new behavior? it seems like those are currently lacking in the PR?

Copy link
Contributor

@iffyio iffyio left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM! Thanks @chenkovsky!
FYI @chenkovsky please re-request review explicitly when ready after addressing comments to avoid the PR getting missed in the queue

@iffyio iffyio merged commit 56848b0 into apache:main Aug 20, 2025
20 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants