[fix](orc) dont't push down null aware predicate #47625
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
Contributor
|
Thank you for your contribution to Apache Doris. Please clearly describe your PR:
|
Contributor
Author
|
run buildall |
Contributor
Author
|
run buildall |
TPC-H: Total hot run time: 31293 ms |
TPC-DS: Total hot run time: 190442 ms |
ClickBench: Total hot run time: 30.18 s |
|
TeamCity be ut coverage result: |
Contributor
|
PR approved by at least one committer and no changes requested. |
github-actions
bot
added
the
approved
Contributor
|
PR approved by anyone and no changes requested. |
github-actions bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 8, 2025
### What problem does this PR solve? Related PR: #43255 Problem Summary: Example: ```sql CREATE TABLE table_a ( id INT, age INT ) STORED AS ORC; INSERT INTO table_a VALUES (1, null), (2, 18), (3, null), (4, 25); CREATE TABLE table_b ( id INT, age INT ) STORED AS ORC; INSERT INTO table_b VALUES (1, null), (2, null), (3, 1000000), (4, 100); ``` run sql ``` select * from table_a inner join table_b on table_a.age <=> table_b.age and table_b.id in (1,3); ``` When executing this SQL, the backend generates a runtime filter on the table_a side during the join operation, resulting in a condition like WHERE table_a.age IN (NULL, 1000000). It’s important to note that since <=> is a null-aware comparison operator, the IN predicate must also be null-aware. However, the ORC predicate pushdown API does not support null-aware IN predicates. As a result, our current approach ignores null values, leading to an empty result set for this query. To fix this bug, we’ve adjusted the logic so that predicates with null-aware comparisons are not pushed down, ensuring the correct result as follows: ```text +------+------+------+------+ | id | age | id | age | +------+------+------+------+ | 1 | NULL | 1 | NULL | | 3 | NULL | 1 | NULL | +------+------+------+------+ ```
morningman
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 17, 2025
### What problem does this PR solve? Related PR: #43255 Problem Summary: Example: ```sql CREATE TABLE table_a ( id INT, age INT ) STORED AS ORC; INSERT INTO table_a VALUES (1, null), (2, 18), (3, null), (4, 25); CREATE TABLE table_b ( id INT, age INT ) STORED AS ORC; INSERT INTO table_b VALUES (1, null), (2, null), (3, 1000000), (4, 100); ``` run sql ``` select * from table_a inner join table_b on table_a.age <=> table_b.age and table_b.id in (1,3); ``` When executing this SQL, the backend generates a runtime filter on the table_a side during the join operation, resulting in a condition like WHERE table_a.age IN (NULL, 1000000). It’s important to note that since <=> is a null-aware comparison operator, the IN predicate must also be null-aware. However, the ORC predicate pushdown API does not support null-aware IN predicates. As a result, our current approach ignores null values, leading to an empty result set for this query. To fix this bug, we’ve adjusted the logic so that predicates with null-aware comparisons are not pushed down, ensuring the correct result as follows: ```text +------+------+------+------+ | id | age | id | age | +------+------+------+------+ | 1 | NULL | 1 | NULL | | 3 | NULL | 1 | NULL | +------+------+------+------+ ```
lzyy2024
pushed a commit
to lzyy2024/doris
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 21, 2025
### What problem does this PR solve? Related PR: apache#43255 Problem Summary: Example: ```sql CREATE TABLE table_a ( id INT, age INT ) STORED AS ORC; INSERT INTO table_a VALUES (1, null), (2, 18), (3, null), (4, 25); CREATE TABLE table_b ( id INT, age INT ) STORED AS ORC; INSERT INTO table_b VALUES (1, null), (2, null), (3, 1000000), (4, 100); ``` run sql ``` select * from table_a inner join table_b on table_a.age <=> table_b.age and table_b.id in (1,3); ``` When executing this SQL, the backend generates a runtime filter on the table_a side during the join operation, resulting in a condition like WHERE table_a.age IN (NULL, 1000000). It’s important to note that since <=> is a null-aware comparison operator, the IN predicate must also be null-aware. However, the ORC predicate pushdown API does not support null-aware IN predicates. As a result, our current approach ignores null values, leading to an empty result set for this query. To fix this bug, we’ve adjusted the logic so that predicates with null-aware comparisons are not pushed down, ensuring the correct result as follows: ```text +------+------+------+------+ | id | age | id | age | +------+------+------+------+ | 1 | NULL | 1 | NULL | | 3 | NULL | 1 | NULL | +------+------+------+------+ ```
koarz
pushed a commit
to koarz/doris
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 4, 2025
### What problem does this PR solve? Related PR: apache#43255 Problem Summary: Example: ```sql CREATE TABLE table_a ( id INT, age INT ) STORED AS ORC; INSERT INTO table_a VALUES (1, null), (2, 18), (3, null), (4, 25); CREATE TABLE table_b ( id INT, age INT ) STORED AS ORC; INSERT INTO table_b VALUES (1, null), (2, null), (3, 1000000), (4, 100); ``` run sql ``` select * from table_a inner join table_b on table_a.age <=> table_b.age and table_b.id in (1,3); ``` When executing this SQL, the backend generates a runtime filter on the table_a side during the join operation, resulting in a condition like WHERE table_a.age IN (NULL, 1000000). It’s important to note that since <=> is a null-aware comparison operator, the IN predicate must also be null-aware. However, the ORC predicate pushdown API does not support null-aware IN predicates. As a result, our current approach ignores null values, leading to an empty result set for this query. To fix this bug, we’ve adjusted the logic so that predicates with null-aware comparisons are not pushed down, ensuring the correct result as follows: ```text +------+------+------+------+ | id | age | id | age | +------+------+------+------+ | 1 | NULL | 1 | NULL | | 3 | NULL | 1 | NULL | +------+------+------+------+ ```
suxiaogang223
added a commit
to suxiaogang223/doris
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 24, 2025
Related PR: apache#43255 Problem Summary: Example: ```sql CREATE TABLE table_a ( id INT, age INT ) STORED AS ORC; INSERT INTO table_a VALUES (1, null), (2, 18), (3, null), (4, 25); CREATE TABLE table_b ( id INT, age INT ) STORED AS ORC; INSERT INTO table_b VALUES (1, null), (2, null), (3, 1000000), (4, 100); ``` run sql ``` select * from table_a inner join table_b on table_a.age <=> table_b.age and table_b.id in (1,3); ``` When executing this SQL, the backend generates a runtime filter on the table_a side during the join operation, resulting in a condition like WHERE table_a.age IN (NULL, 1000000). It’s important to note that since <=> is a null-aware comparison operator, the IN predicate must also be null-aware. However, the ORC predicate pushdown API does not support null-aware IN predicates. As a result, our current approach ignores null values, leading to an empty result set for this query. To fix this bug, we’ve adjusted the logic so that predicates with null-aware comparisons are not pushed down, ensuring the correct result as follows: ```text +------+------+------+------+ | id | age | id | age | +------+------+------+------+ | 1 | NULL | 1 | NULL | | 3 | NULL | 1 | NULL | +------+------+------+------+ ```
suxiaogang223
added a commit
to suxiaogang223/doris
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 25, 2025
Related PR: apache#43255 Problem Summary: Example: ```sql CREATE TABLE table_a ( id INT, age INT ) STORED AS ORC; INSERT INTO table_a VALUES (1, null), (2, 18), (3, null), (4, 25); CREATE TABLE table_b ( id INT, age INT ) STORED AS ORC; INSERT INTO table_b VALUES (1, null), (2, null), (3, 1000000), (4, 100); ``` run sql ``` select * from table_a inner join table_b on table_a.age <=> table_b.age and table_b.id in (1,3); ``` When executing this SQL, the backend generates a runtime filter on the table_a side during the join operation, resulting in a condition like WHERE table_a.age IN (NULL, 1000000). It’s important to note that since <=> is a null-aware comparison operator, the IN predicate must also be null-aware. However, the ORC predicate pushdown API does not support null-aware IN predicates. As a result, our current approach ignores null values, leading to an empty result set for this query. To fix this bug, we’ve adjusted the logic so that predicates with null-aware comparisons are not pushed down, ensuring the correct result as follows: ```text +------+------+------+------+ | id | age | id | age | +------+------+------+------+ | 1 | NULL | 1 | NULL | | 3 | NULL | 1 | NULL | +------+------+------+------+ ```
morningman
pushed a commit
to suxiaogang223/doris
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 25, 2025
Related PR: apache#43255 Problem Summary: Example: ```sql CREATE TABLE table_a ( id INT, age INT ) STORED AS ORC; INSERT INTO table_a VALUES (1, null), (2, 18), (3, null), (4, 25); CREATE TABLE table_b ( id INT, age INT ) STORED AS ORC; INSERT INTO table_b VALUES (1, null), (2, null), (3, 1000000), (4, 100); ``` run sql ``` select * from table_a inner join table_b on table_a.age <=> table_b.age and table_b.id in (1,3); ``` When executing this SQL, the backend generates a runtime filter on the table_a side during the join operation, resulting in a condition like WHERE table_a.age IN (NULL, 1000000). It’s important to note that since <=> is a null-aware comparison operator, the IN predicate must also be null-aware. However, the ORC predicate pushdown API does not support null-aware IN predicates. As a result, our current approach ignores null values, leading to an empty result set for this query. To fix this bug, we’ve adjusted the logic so that predicates with null-aware comparisons are not pushed down, ensuring the correct result as follows: ```text +------+------+------+------+ | id | age | id | age | +------+------+------+------+ | 1 | NULL | 1 | NULL | | 3 | NULL | 1 | NULL | +------+------+------+------+ ```
suxiaogang223
added a commit
to suxiaogang223/doris
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 26, 2025
Related PR: apache#43255 Problem Summary: Example: ```sql CREATE TABLE table_a ( id INT, age INT ) STORED AS ORC; INSERT INTO table_a VALUES (1, null), (2, 18), (3, null), (4, 25); CREATE TABLE table_b ( id INT, age INT ) STORED AS ORC; INSERT INTO table_b VALUES (1, null), (2, null), (3, 1000000), (4, 100); ``` run sql ``` select * from table_a inner join table_b on table_a.age <=> table_b.age and table_b.id in (1,3); ``` When executing this SQL, the backend generates a runtime filter on the table_a side during the join operation, resulting in a condition like WHERE table_a.age IN (NULL, 1000000). It’s important to note that since <=> is a null-aware comparison operator, the IN predicate must also be null-aware. However, the ORC predicate pushdown API does not support null-aware IN predicates. As a result, our current approach ignores null values, leading to an empty result set for this query. To fix this bug, we’ve adjusted the logic so that predicates with null-aware comparisons are not pushed down, ensuring the correct result as follows: ```text +------+------+------+------+ | id | age | id | age | +------+------+------+------+ | 1 | NULL | 1 | NULL | | 3 | NULL | 1 | NULL | +------+------+------+------+ ```
morrySnow
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 27, 2025
GoGoWen
pushed a commit
to GoGoWen/incubator-doris
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 26, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
6 participants
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.
What problem does this PR solve?
Related PR: #43255
Problem Summary:
Example:
run sql
When executing this SQL, the backend generates a runtime filter on the table_a side during the join operation, resulting in a condition like WHERE table_a.age IN (NULL, 1000000). It’s important to note that since <=> is a null-aware comparison operator, the IN predicate must also be null-aware. However, the ORC predicate pushdown API does not support null-aware IN predicates. As a result, our current approach ignores null values, leading to an empty result set for this query.
To fix this bug, we’ve adjusted the logic so that predicates with null-aware comparisons are not pushed down, ensuring the correct result as follows:
Release note
None
Check List (For Author)
Test
Behavior changed:
Does this need documentation?
Check List (For Reviewer who merge this PR)