*: add builtin aggregate function `json_objectagg` by hg2990656 · Pull Request #11154 · pingcap/tidb

hg2990656 · 2019-07-09T14:15:29Z

What problem does this PR solve?

What is changed and how it works?

add an json_objectagg function

Test

mysql> CREATE TABLE `t` (
    ->   `a` int(11) DEFAULT NULL,
    ->   `b` varchar(100) DEFAULT NULL,
    ->   `c` decimal(3,2) DEFAULT NULL,
    ->   `d` json DEFAULT NULL
    -> );
Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.01 sec)

mysql> insert t values(1, "ab", "5.5", '{"id": 1}');
Query OK, 1 row affected (0.00 sec)

mysql> insert t values(1, "cd", "0.5", '{"id": 1}');
Query OK, 1 row affected (0.00 sec)

mysql> insert t values(2, "ef", "2.5", '{"id": 2}');
Query OK, 1 row affected (0.00 sec)

mysql> select json_objectagg(a, b) from t;
+------------------------+
| json_objectagg(a, b)   |
+------------------------+
| {"1": "cd", "2": "ef"} |
+------------------------+
1 row in set (0.00 sec)
mysql> select json_objectagg(b, c) from t;
+-----------------------------------+
| json_objectagg(b, c)              |
+-----------------------------------+
| {"ab": 5.5, "cd": 0.5, "ef": 2.5} |
+-----------------------------------+
1 row in set (0.00 sec)
mysql> select a, json_objectagg(d, b) from t group by a;
+------+-----------------------+
| a    | json_objectagg(d, b)  |
+------+-----------------------+
|    2 | {"{\"id\": 2}": "ef"} |
|    1 | {"{\"id\": 1}": "cd"} |
+------+-----------------------+
2 rows in set (0.00 sec)
mysql> select b, json_objectagg(d, b) from t group by b;
+------+-----------------------+
| b    | json_objectagg(d, b)  |
+------+-----------------------+
| cd   | {"{\"id\": 1}": "cd"} |
| ef   | {"{\"id\": 2}": "ef"} |
| ab   | {"{\"id\": 1}": "ab"} |
+------+-----------------------+
3 rows in set (0.00 sec)

Related changes

Need to add definition of json_objectagg in pingcap/parser https://github.com/pingcap/parser/pull/378
Need to add related aggfunc test

CLAassistant · 2019-07-09T14:15:44Z

Thank you for your submission, we really appreciate it. Like many open source projects, we ask that you sign our Contributor License Agreement before we can accept your contribution.
_{You have signed the CLA already but the status is still pending? Let us recheck it.}

zz-jason · 2019-07-17T09:35:45Z

@hg2990656 Thanks for your contribution, please follow the Contribution Guide to add a proper PR title.

zz-jason · 2019-08-03T08:18:12Z

@hg2990656 friendly ping, any update?

sre-bot · 2019-08-03T08:18:16Z

Hi contributor, thanks for your PR.

This patch needs to be approved by someone of admins. They should reply with "/ok-to-test" to accept this PR for running test automatically.

zz-jason · 2019-08-25T07:32:33Z

@hg2990656 Hi, it has been a long time since the PR is filed. Any update to fix the CI failure?

hg2990656 · 2019-09-01T07:08:34Z

@hg2990656 Hi, it has been a long time since the PR is filed. Any update to fix the CI failure?

The problem is that the json_objectagg aggregate function is not defined in now parser.I have added it in the another PR of parser and I am modifying it, so whether if the parser is updated in the master, then this CI can be no problem

codecov · 2019-12-16T08:08:21Z

Codecov Report

❗ No coverage uploaded for pull request base (master@c36f83e). Click here to learn what that means.
The diff coverage is 0%.

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             master     #11154   +/-   ##
===========================================
  Coverage          ?   80.9743%           
===========================================
  Files             ?        422           
  Lines             ?      89763           
  Branches          ?          0           
===========================================
  Hits              ?      72685           
  Misses            ?      11819           
  Partials          ?       5259

hg2990656 · 2020-01-12T15:54:21Z

Because json_objectagg has two arguments, but the aggfunc_test only support one argument aggfunc now, so I add some functions to test json_objectagg according to now test methods.I am not sure whether it's right for you, if it's all right, I can merge it to origin function to support both single and multiple arguments aggfuncs.
Another problem is the function appendBinary does't support many type now such as []byte, myDecimal, so I wonder to know whether I should add all of them in appendBinary to support create json whose value can be any type in json_objectagg result json.

hg2990656 · 2020-01-15T02:43:11Z

@zz-jason
Because appendBinary in json/binary.go support only servaral types to convert to []byte and append to json.So there seems to be too many types which are needed to support for json_objectagg when add the value to the json.
Another question is that the aggfunc_test doesn't support two arguments aggfuncs now, so I have added some functions to test json_objectagg according to origin test method.If it's right, I can merge them to origin test functions to support both single or multiple argument aggfuncs.

qw4990 · 2020-02-04T12:39:31Z

Friendly ping, please solve the CI problem:

[2020-02-04T12:33:59.381Z] FAIL: physical_plan_test.go:1148: testPlanSuite.TestDAGPlanBuilderWindowParallel

[2020-02-04T12:33:59.381Z] 

[2020-02-04T12:33:59.381Z] physical_plan_test.go:1159:

[2020-02-04T12:33:59.381Z]     s.doTestDAGPlanBuilderWindow(c, vars, input, output)

[2020-02-04T12:33:59.381Z] physical_plan_test.go:1191:

[2020-02-04T12:33:59.381Z]     c.Assert(err, IsNil)

[2020-02-04T12:33:59.381Z] ... value *errors.withStack = [planner:1815]Internal : Can not find access path matching 'tidb_isolation_read_engines'(value: '[tiflash]') and tidb-server config isolation-read(engines: 'tikv,tiflash,tidb'). Available values are 'tikv'. ("[planner:1815]Internal : Can not find access path matching 'tidb_isolation_read_engines'(value: '[tiflash]') and tidb-server config isolation-read(engines: 'tikv,tiflash,tidb'). Available values are 'tikv'.")

hg2990656 · 2020-02-04T12:44:51Z

Friendly ping, please solve the CI problem:

[2020-02-04T12:33:59.381Z] FAIL: physical_plan_test.go:1148: testPlanSuite.TestDAGPlanBuilderWindowParallel

[2020-02-04T12:33:59.381Z] 

[2020-02-04T12:33:59.381Z] physical_plan_test.go:1159:

[2020-02-04T12:33:59.381Z]     s.doTestDAGPlanBuilderWindow(c, vars, input, output)

[2020-02-04T12:33:59.381Z] physical_plan_test.go:1191:

[2020-02-04T12:33:59.381Z]     c.Assert(err, IsNil)

[2020-02-04T12:33:59.381Z] ... value *errors.withStack = [planner:1815]Internal : Can not find access path matching 'tidb_isolation_read_engines'(value: '[tiflash]') and tidb-server config isolation-read(engines: 'tikv,tiflash,tidb'). Available values are 'tikv'. ("[planner:1815]Internal : Can not find access path matching 'tidb_isolation_read_engines'(value: '[tiflash]') and tidb-server config isolation-read(engines: 'tikv,tiflash,tidb'). Available values are 'tikv'.")

This problem seems to be not relative to this aggregate function.What's the error?

qw4990

LGTM

sre-bot · 2020-02-04T13:27:10Z

Your auto merge job has been accepted, waiting for 14611

qw4990 · 2020-02-04T13:36:08Z

@hg2990656 Thanks for your contribution!! This is our Slack Channel about TiDB Execution Engine, on this channel you can discuss anything about TiDB's Execution Engine.
If you are interested in it, welcome to join us :D

sre-bot · 2020-02-04T13:38:55Z

/run-all-tests

hg2990656 changed the title ~~Json objectagg~~ add json_objectagg Jul 10, 2019

zz-jason added contribution This PR is from a community contributor. sig/execution SIG execution labels Jul 17, 2019

zz-jason added the status/ReqChange label Aug 3, 2019

zz-jason changed the title ~~add json_objectagg~~ *: add builtin scalar function json_objectagg Sep 1, 2019

hg2990656 requested review from a team as code owners December 16, 2019 08:08

ghost requested review from a team, XuHuaiyu, alivxxx, eurekaka and qw4990 and removed request for a team December 16, 2019 08:08

ghost removed their request for review December 16, 2019 08:08

eurekaka removed their request for review December 16, 2019 08:11

alivxxx removed their request for review December 16, 2019 10:26

hg2990656 force-pushed the json_objectagg branch from 37d0542 to 860dbc7 Compare January 12, 2020 15:38

hg2990656 force-pushed the json_objectagg branch 2 times, most recently from 1230030 to 6c71a23 Compare January 15, 2020 02:30

qw4990 mentioned this pull request Jan 19, 2020

Call For Participation: Improve the JSON functionality #14486

Open

24 tasks

hg2990656 added 9 commits February 4, 2020 16:32

add aggfunc test type

04e3e58

update parser dependency

a77260c

add json_objectagg errcode

1d4800c

add mydecimal and []byte type

1c8374b

delete own parser dependency

e9a275e

remove baseJSONObjectAgg

3552605

modify aggfunc name

9c75f39

test jenkin unit test error

5ef975a

add copyright and integration test

8a119e4

hg2990656 force-pushed the json_objectagg branch 6 times, most recently from 6e0cd0f to 6133719 Compare February 4, 2020 12:22

resolve jenkins check dev2 error

cb75518

hg2990656 force-pushed the json_objectagg branch from 6133719 to cb75518 Compare February 4, 2020 12:33

delete json

200f403

qw4990 approved these changes Feb 4, 2020

View reviewed changes

qw4990 added status/can-merge Indicates a PR has been approved by a committer. status/LGT2 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 2. and removed status/LGT1 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 1. labels Feb 4, 2020

Merge branch 'master' into json_objectagg

490fe34

sre-bot merged commit ebc6a2d into pingcap:master Feb 4, 2020

hsqlu pushed a commit to hsqlu/tidb that referenced this pull request Feb 8, 2020

*: add builtin aggregate function json_objectagg (pingcap#11154)

2fa041c

Conversation

hg2990656 commented Jul 9, 2019 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

What problem does this PR solve?

What is changed and how it works?

Test

Related changes

Uh oh!

CLAassistant commented Jul 9, 2019

Uh oh!

zz-jason commented Jul 17, 2019

Uh oh!

zz-jason commented Aug 3, 2019

Uh oh!

sre-bot commented Aug 3, 2019

Uh oh!

zz-jason commented Aug 25, 2019

Uh oh!

hg2990656 commented Sep 1, 2019

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Dec 16, 2019 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

hg2990656 commented Jan 12, 2020

Uh oh!

hg2990656 commented Jan 15, 2020

Uh oh!

qw4990 commented Feb 4, 2020

Uh oh!

hg2990656 commented Feb 4, 2020

Uh oh!

qw4990 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sre-bot commented Feb 4, 2020

Uh oh!

qw4990 commented Feb 4, 2020

Uh oh!

sre-bot commented Feb 4, 2020

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

hg2990656 commented Jul 9, 2019 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Dec 16, 2019 •

edited

Loading