[ESQL] Add TO_DATE_NANOS conversion function (#112150) #113641
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
Resolves elastic#111842 This adds a conversion function that yields DATE_NANOS. Mostly this is straight forward. It is worth noting that when converting a millisecond date into a nanosecond date, the conversion function truncates it to 0 nanoseconds (i.e. first nanosecond of that millisecond). This is, of course, a bit of an assumption, but I don't have a better assumption we can make. I'd thought about adding a second, optional, parameter to control this behavior, but it's important that TO_DATE_NANOS extend AbstractConvertFunction, which itself extends UnaryScalarFunction, so that it will work correctly with union types. Also, it's unlikely the user will have any better guess than we do for filling in the nanoseconds. Making that assumption does, however, create some weirdness. Consider two comparisons: TO_DATETIME("2023-03-23T12:15:03.360103847") == TO_DATETIME("2023-03-23T12:15:03.360") will return true while TO_DATE_NANOS("2023-03-23T12:15:03.360103847") == TO_DATE_NANOS("2023-03-23T12:15:03.360") will return false. This is akin to casting between longs and doubles, where things may compare equal in one type that are not equal in the other. This seems fine, and I can't think of a better way to do it, but it's worth being aware of. --------- Co-authored-by: Elastic Machine <[email protected]>
not-napoleon
added
>non-issue
backport
auto-merge-without-approval
|
Documentation preview: |
|
@elasticmachine run elasticsearch-ci/part-2 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Backport of #112150
Resolves #111842
This adds a conversion function that yields DATE_NANOS. Mostly this is straight forward.
It is worth noting that when converting a millisecond date into a nanosecond date, the conversion function truncates it to 0 nanoseconds (i.e. first nanosecond of that millisecond). This is, of course, a bit of an assumption, but I don't have a better assumption we can make. I'd thought about adding a second, optional, parameter to control this behavior, but it's important that TO_DATE_NANOS extend AbstractConvertFunction, which itself extends UnaryScalarFunction, so that it will work correctly with union types. Also, it's unlikely the user will have any better guess than we do for filling in the nanoseconds.
Making that assumption does, however, create some weirdness. Consider two comparisons:
TO_DATETIME("2023-03-23T12:15:03.360103847") == TO_DATETIME("2023-03-23T12:15:03.360") will return true while TO_DATE_NANOS("2023-03-23T12:15:03.360103847") == TO_DATE_NANOS("2023-03-23T12:15:03.360") will return false. This is akin to casting between longs and doubles, where things may compare equal in one type that are not equal in the other. This seems fine, and I can't think of a better way to do it, but it's worth being aware of.