[feature](join) support ASOF join#59591
Open
starocean999 wants to merge 28 commits intoapache:masterfrom
Open
Conversation
Contributor
|
Thank you for your contribution to Apache Doris. Please clearly describe your PR:
|
Contributor
Author
|
run buildall |
Contributor
Cloud UT Coverage ReportIncrement line coverage Increment coverage report
|
starocean999
force-pushed
the
asof_join
branch
from
6dc9ac9 to
19a3cbf
Compare
Contributor
Author
|
run buildall |
TPC-H: Total hot run time: 31804 ms |
Cloud UT Coverage ReportIncrement line coverage Increment coverage report
|
TPC-DS: Total hot run time: 172506 ms |
ClickBench: Total hot run time: 27.35 s |
BE UT Coverage ReportIncrement line coverage Increment coverage report
|
Contributor
BE Regression && UT Coverage ReportIncrement line coverage Increment coverage report
|
Contributor
FE Regression Coverage ReportIncrement line coverage |
Contributor
FE UT Coverage ReportIncrement line coverage |
zclllyybb
force-pushed
the
asof_join
branch
2 times, most recently
from
d8e6c99 to
81a3daa
Compare
Contributor
|
run buildall |
Contributor
Cloud UT Coverage ReportIncrement line coverage Increment coverage report
|
TPC-H: Total hot run time: 32078 ms |
TPC-DS: Total hot run time: 173320 ms |
ClickBench: Total hot run time: 26.93 s |
Contributor
BE UT Coverage ReportIncrement line coverage Increment coverage report
|
Contributor
|
run buildall |
Cloud UT Coverage ReportIncrement line coverage Increment coverage report
|
TPC-H: Total hot run time: 32282 ms |
TPC-DS: Total hot run time: 174282 ms |
ClickBench: Total hot run time: 27.94 s |
Contributor
FE Regression Coverage ReportIncrement line coverage |
starocean999
force-pushed
the
asof_join
branch
from
b5eec36 to
c3f5cab
Compare
BE UT Coverage ReportIncrement line coverage Increment coverage report
|
morrySnow
reviewed
Jan 19, 2026
| ARRAY: 'ARRAY'; | ||
| AS: 'AS'; | ||
| ASC: 'ASC'; | ||
| ASOF: 'ASOF'; |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
add new keywords into non-reserved keywords list
| ASOF_LEFT_INNER_JOIN("ASOF_LEFT_INNER_JOIN", TJoinOp.ASOF_LEFT_INNER_JOIN), | ||
| ASOF_RIGHT_INNER_JOIN("ASOF_RIGHT_INNER_JOIN", TJoinOp.ASOF_RIGHT_INNER_JOIN), | ||
| ASOF_LEFT_OUTER_JOIN("ASOF_LEFT_OUTER_JOIN", TJoinOp.ASOF_LEFT_OUTER_JOIN), | ||
| ASOF_RIGHT_OUTER_JOIN("ASOF_LEFT_INNER_JOIN", TJoinOp.ASOF_RIGHT_OUTER_JOIN); |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| ASOF_RIGHT_OUTER_JOIN("ASOF_LEFT_INNER_JOIN", TJoinOp.ASOF_RIGHT_OUTER_JOIN); | |
| ASOF_RIGHT_OUTER_JOIN("ASOF_LEFT_OUTER_JOIN", TJoinOp.ASOF_RIGHT_OUTER_JOIN); |
Comment on lines
+4354
to
+4458
| if (!(matchCondition instanceof LessThan | ||
| || matchCondition instanceof LessThanEqual | ||
| || matchCondition instanceof GreaterThan | ||
| || matchCondition instanceof GreaterThanEqual)) { | ||
| throw new ParseException("ASOF JOIN's MATCH_CONDITION must be <, <=, >, >=", join); | ||
| } |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's better to enforce the restriction directly in the parser, as it can speed up parsing.
Comment on lines
4405
to
4407
| if (expression.child(0).isConstant() || expression.child(1).isConstant()) { | ||
| throw new ParseException("ASOF JOIN's EQUAL conjunct's children must not be constant"); | ||
| } |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why check it here? could we reject all constant expression here?
Comment on lines
795
to
805
| return new LogicalJoin<>( | ||
| using.getJoinType(), | ||
| hashEqExprs.build(), ImmutableList.of(using.getMatchCondition().get()), | ||
| using.getDistributeHint(), Optional.empty(), rightConjunctsSlots, | ||
| using.children(), null); | ||
| } else { | ||
| return new LogicalJoin<>( | ||
| using.getJoinType() == JoinType.CROSS_JOIN ? JoinType.INNER_JOIN : using.getJoinType(), | ||
| hashEqExprs.build(), ImmutableList.of(), | ||
| using.getDistributeHint(), Optional.empty(), rightConjunctsSlots, | ||
| using.children(), null); |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| return new LogicalJoin<>( | |
| using.getJoinType(), | |
| hashEqExprs.build(), ImmutableList.of(using.getMatchCondition().get()), | |
| using.getDistributeHint(), Optional.empty(), rightConjunctsSlots, | |
| using.children(), null); | |
| } else { | |
| return new LogicalJoin<>( | |
| using.getJoinType() == JoinType.CROSS_JOIN ? JoinType.INNER_JOIN : using.getJoinType(), | |
| hashEqExprs.build(), ImmutableList.of(), | |
| using.getDistributeHint(), Optional.empty(), rightConjunctsSlots, | |
| using.children(), null); | |
| return new LogicalJoin<>( | |
| using.getJoinType() == JoinType.CROSS_JOIN ? JoinType.INNER_JOIN : using.getJoinType(), | |
| hashEqExprs.build(), using.getMatchCondition().map(ImmutableList::of).orElse(ImmutableList.of()), | |
| using.getDistributeHint(), Optional.empty(), rightConjunctsSlots, | |
| using.children(), null); |
Comment on lines
+61
to
64
| Pair.of(JoinType.ASOF_LEFT_OUTER_JOIN, JoinType.ASOF_LEFT_OUTER_JOIN), | ||
| Pair.of(JoinType.LEFT_OUTER_JOIN, JoinType.LEFT_OUTER_JOIN)); |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why not have LEFT_OUTER_JOIN -> ASOF_LEFT_OUTER_JOIN and ASOF_LEFT_OUTER_JOIN -> LEFT_OUTER_JOIN
| .put(Pair.of(JoinType.RIGHT_SEMI_JOIN, JoinType.INNER_JOIN), Pair.of(false, false)) | ||
| .put(Pair.of(JoinType.RIGHT_SEMI_JOIN, JoinType.ASOF_LEFT_INNER_JOIN), Pair.of(false, false)) | ||
| .put(Pair.of(JoinType.RIGHT_SEMI_JOIN, JoinType.ASOF_RIGHT_INNER_JOIN), Pair.of(false, false)) | ||
| .put(Pair.of(JoinType.INNER_JOIN, JoinType.LEFT_OUTER_JOIN), Pair.of(false, true)) |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why not include INNER_JOIN -> ASOF_LEFT_OUTER_JOIN? and INNER_JOIN -> ASOF_RIGHT_OUTER_JOIN?
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| private static Statistics estimateAsofInnerJoin(Statistics leftStats, Statistics rightStats, |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
add ut for new estimation
…and support MATCH_CONDITION commutation
…fix NULL handling - Materialize both sides of MATCH_CONDITION by executing expressions, enabling support for complex expressions (e.g., DATE_ADD) in addition to simple slot references - Fix NULL value handling: NULL comparisons now correctly return no match instead of incorrectly matching rows - Simplify comparison logic by leveraging FE's guarantee that MATCH_CONDITION left side references probe table and right side references build table after
Contributor
|
run buildall |
Contributor
Cloud UT Coverage ReportIncrement line coverage Increment coverage report
|
Contributor
FE UT Coverage ReportIncrement line coverage |
TPC-H: Total hot run time: 30670 ms |
ClickBench: Total hot run time: 29.04 s |
Contributor
BE UT Coverage ReportIncrement line coverage Increment coverage report
|
Contributor
BE Regression && UT Coverage ReportIncrement line coverage Increment coverage report
|
Contributor
FE Regression Coverage ReportIncrement line coverage |
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
7 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?
Issue Number: close #xxx
Related PR: #xxx
Problem Summary:
Release note
None
Check List (For Author)
Test
Behavior changed:
Does this need documentation?
Check List (For Reviewer who merge this PR)