Allow aggregation without projection in Unparser
#13326
Merged
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
blaginin
force-pushed
the
fix-aggrefation-without-projection
branch
from
69be75b
to
d539fc8
Compare
blaginin
force-pushed
the
fix-aggrefation-without-projection
branch
from
d539fc8
to
8eece06
Compare
blaginin
changed the title
Unparser
3 tasks
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Which issue does this PR close?
Closes #12773
Rationale for this change
When parsing a query into a logical plan, aggregation precedes projection. But optimiser can eliminate projection, leaving aggregation as a top node. This is not expected by
select_to_sql_recursivelybecause it always handles projection and aggregation together.What changes are included in this PR?
Added a separate branch if aggregation is the top node.
Are these changes tested?
Yes, added a new test
Are there any user-facing changes?
No