[CALCITE-6193] If a query has more than one subexpression that matche…

[JiajunBernoulli]

…s a materialized view, only the first is substituted

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

The SonarCloud Quality Gate passed, but some issues were introduced.

2 New issues
0 Security Hotspots
100.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud

[l4wei]

The 1879 and 1880 lines are still be replaced by mv's target descendant, it's parent may be shared with a wrong node, so I think this solution is not very is not very correct.

[JiajunBernoulli]

If I don't commit, the RelNode is

LogicalCalc(expr#0..1=[{inputs}], deptno=[$t0])
  LogicalJoin(condition=[=($0, $1)], joinType=[inner])
    LogicalUnion(all=[true])
      LogicalCalc(expr#0..1=[{inputs}], deptno=[$t1]) -- same as 1879
        LogicalCalc(expr#0..4=[{inputs}], proj#0..1=[{exprs}]) -- same as 1880
          LogicalTableScan(table=[[hr, emps]])
      LogicalAggregate(group=[{1}])
        EnumerableTableScan(table=[[hr, MV0]])
    LogicalAggregate(group=[{0}])
      LogicalCalc(expr#0..4=[{inputs}], deptno=[$t1])
        LogicalTableScan(table=[[hr, emps]])

There are two LogicalCalc, do you mean this is Error?

[l4wei]

Yes, because these two LogicalCalc operators both are replaced by mv's target descendant, I think these temporary replacements should be undo after the real replacement has been done. This is the correct solution for this problem.

[l4wei]

I think getInputs.get(currentInputIndex) is just a walk-around to force traverse the missed nodes. Actually, preOrderTraverseNext method can traverse all the nodes of this plan tree, There is no need to add a new status to record the current node's position.

[JiajunBernoulli]

It is a demo.

I think that it always get(0) is error.
We should find a better way to traverse the missing nodes.

[l4wei]

I think get(0) is correct, get(0) is just a starting point when traverse child-nodes, preOrderTraverseNext method can traverse the missing nodes.

[github-actions]

This pull request has been marked as stale due to 30 days of inactivity. It will be closed in 90 days if no further activity occurs. If you think that’s incorrect or this pull request requires a review, please simply write any comment. If closed, you can revive the PR at any time and @mention a reviewer or discuss it on the dev@calcite.apache.org list. Thank you for your contributions.