Skip to content

fix(tesseract): Fix rolling window with few time dimensions, filter_group in segments and member expressions #9673

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
merged 10 commits into from
Jun 13, 2025
Merged

fix(tesseract): Fix rolling window with few time dimensions, filter_group in segments and member expressions #9673

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
10 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
12880ec
feat(tesseract): Catch up with features recently added to BaseQuery
waralexrom Jun 10, 2025
866e024
rolling window with two td one custom and one regular
waralexrom Jun 10, 2025
916b926
patched measures
waralexrom Jun 11, 2025
ed2c307
filter_group in segments
waralexrom Jun 11, 2025
f0ccd15
fix
waralexrom Jun 11, 2025
44099a1
limit fix
waralexrom Jun 11, 2025
d787e45
member expressions fixes
waralexrom Jun 12, 2025
14cc1e3
fix
waralexrom Jun 12, 2025
a206bff
addon
waralexrom Jun 12, 2025
c17bcbb
fix
waralexrom Jun 13, 2025
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
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion rust/cubesqlplanner/cubesqlplanner/src/planner/planners/multiplied_measures_query_planner.rs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ impl MultipliedMeasuresQueryPlanner {
schema,
filter: logical_filter,
offset: self.query_properties.offset(),
Copy link
Contributor

@UsmanYasin UsmanYasin Jun 11, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nice catch there. I noticed the offset is still present here and wanted to share some thoughts (though I'm still familiarizing myself with the codebase, so please correct me if I'm missing something).

From what I understand, there might be a few considerations regarding offset in subqueries:

  1. Database compatibility: Different databases have varying requirements for offset usage:
    MSSQL requires an ORDER BY clause when using OFFSET
    MySQL requires OFFSET to be paired with a LIMIT clause
  2. Pagination concerns: I'm wondering if pagination logic should be restricted to the outer query only? My understanding is that applying pagination to inner queries could potentially lead to data inconsistencies, especially when the API request includes result pagination.

Would it make sense to remove the offset from this subquery as well? I'd appreciate your thoughts on this, as you likely have more context about the intended behavior here.

Copy link
Member Author

@waralexrom waralexrom Jun 12, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@UsmanYasin Thank you so much for catching that! The offset really isn’t needed here — that was my mistake, and I’ve removed it.
More broadly, I think this part could use a small refactor to prevent both limit and offset from being set at all in this context. I’ve been thinking about that, and as I find time, I plan to gradually refactor things to (hopefully) improve the architecture and overall clarity.

limit: self.query_properties.row_limit(),
limit: None,
ungrouped: self.query_properties.ungrouped(),
dimension_subqueries: subquery_dimension_queries,
source: SimpleQuerySource::LogicalJoin(source),
Expand Down
Loading