Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Sep 27, 2019. It is now read-only.

GetVarcharValue.ToString lost the last character #332

Closed
eric-haibin-lin opened this issue Nov 3, 2016 · 0 comments
Closed

GetVarcharValue.ToString lost the last character #332

eric-haibin-lin opened this issue Nov 3, 2016 · 0 comments

Comments

@eric-haibin-lin
Copy link
Member

eric-haibin-lin commented Nov 3, 2016 •
edited
Loading

This test will fail:

common::Value v9 = common::ValueFactory::GetVarcharValue("hello");
EXPECT_EQ(v9.ToString(), "hello");

v9.ToString() returns "hell".
Because GetVarcharValue didn't count the \0 at the end, while ToString considers the last character to be \0.

https://github.com/cmu-db/peloton/blob/master/src/include/common/value_factory.h#L61
https://github.com/cmu-db/peloton/blob/master/src/common/varlen_type.cpp#L139
eric-haibin-lin added a commit to eric-haibin-lin/peloton-1 that referenced this issue Nov 3, 2016
@eric-haibin-lin
Fix getVarchar value length cmu-db#332
7b15e67
@eric-haibin-lin eric-haibin-lin mentioned this issue Nov 3, 2016
Merged
eric-haibin-lin added a commit to eric-haibin-lin/peloton-1 that referenced this issue Nov 3, 2016
@eric-haibin-lin
Fix getVarchar value length cmu-db#332
4e91f92
linmagit added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 3, 2016
@linmagit
Merge pull request #333 from eric-haibin-lin/buf-fix
d4ed204 
Fix getVarchar value length  #332
eric-haibin-lin added a commit to eric-haibin-lin/peloton-1 that referenced this issue Nov 4, 2016
@eric-haibin-lin
Fix getVarchar value length cmu-db#332
d18dfdb
17zhangw added a commit to 17zhangw/peloton that referenced this issue Apr 5, 2019
@17zhangw
Refactoring + full tree rebuilding (at least 2 levels work)
f4d4e8f 
What still doesn't work/don't care about yet/not done
- proper memory management (terrier uses shared_ptr anyways)

- other 1-level rewrites, multi-layer rewrites, other expr rewrites

- how can we define a grammar to programmatically create these rewrites?
  (the one we have is way too static...)

- in relation to logical equivalence:
  (1) how do we generate logically equivalent expressions:
      - multi-pass using generating rules (similar to ApplyRule) OR
      - from Pattern A, generate logically equivalent set of patterns P OR
      - transform input expression to match certain specification OR
      - ???
  (2) what operators do we support translating?
      - probably (a AND b) ====> (b AND a)
      - probably (a OR b) ====> (b OR a)
      - probably (a = b) ====> (b = a)
      - maybe more???
  (3) do we want multi level translations?
      - i.e (a AND b) AND c ====> (a AND (b AND c))
      - what order do we do these in?
  May have to modify these operations:
  - Some assertions in TopDownRewrite/BottomUpRewrite w.r.t to the iterator
  - Possibly binding.cpp / optimizer_metadata.h / optimizer_task.cpp

Issues still pending:
- Comparing Values (Matt email/discussion)
- r.rule->Check (terrier issue cmu-db#332)
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
1 participant
@eric-haibin-lin