Partiql eval limit offset

[yliuuuu]

Relevant Issues

• [Closes/Related To] Issue #XXX

Description

• Remodel Limit / Offset

If limit is 0 or null, the query should behavior as the same as if there were no limit clause.
If offset is 0 or null, the query should behavior as the same as if there were no offset clause.
If limit and offset clause both exist, the offset should get executed first.

Update:
When converting from AST to Plan, append the offset node first then the limit node.

Other Information

• Updated Unreleased Section in CHANGELOG: [YES/NO]

  • < If NO, why? >

• Any backward-incompatible changes? [YES/NO]

  • < If YES, why? >
  • < For this purpose, we define backward-incompatible changes as changes that—when consumed—can potentially result in
    errors for users that are using our public APIs or the entities that have public visibility in our code-base. >

• Any new external dependencies? [YES/NO]

  • < If YES, which ones and why? >
  • < In addition, please also mention any other alternatives you've considered and the reason they've been discarded >

• Do your changes comply with the Contributing Guidelines
  and Code Style Guidelines? [YES/NO]

License Information

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.

[github-actions]

Conformance comparison report-Cross Engine

	Base (eval)	legacy	+/-
% Passing	55.59%	92.47%	36.89%
✅ Passing	3234	5380	2146
❌ Failing	2584	438	-2146
🔶 Ignored	0	0	0
Total Tests	5818	5818	0
Number passing in both: 3228

Number failing in both: 432

Number passing in eval engine but fail in legacy engine: 6

Number failing in eval engine but pass in legacy engine: 2152
⁉️ CONFORMANCE REPORT REGRESSION DETECTED ⁉️. The following test(s) are passing in eval but fail in legacy:

Click here to see

• nullif valid cases{first:"missing",second:"missing",result:missing}, compileOption: PERMISSIVE
• nullif valid cases{first:"missing",second:"missing",result:missing}, compileOption: LEGACY
• offset 2^63, compileOption: PERMISSIVE
• offset 2^63, compileOption: LEGACY
• offset 1-2, compileOption: PERMISSIVE
• missing and true, compileOption: PERMISSIVE

2152 test(s) were failing in eval but now pass in legacy. Before merging, confirm they are intended to pass. The complete list can be found in GitHub CI summary, either from Step Summary or in the Artifact.

Conformance comparison report-Cross Commit-EVAL

	Base (339bd05)	f58b5cf	+/-
% Passing	55.55%	55.59%	0.03%
✅ Passing	3232	3234	2
❌ Failing	2586	2584	-2
🔶 Ignored	0	0	0
Total Tests	5818	5818	0
Number passing in both: 3207

Number failing in both: 2559

Number passing in Base (339bd05) but now fail: 25

Number failing in Base (339bd05) but now pass: 27
⁉️ CONFORMANCE REPORT REGRESSION DETECTED ⁉️
The complete list can be found in GitHub CI summary, either from Step Summary or in the Artifact.
27 test(s) were previously failing but now pass. Before merging, confirm they are intended to pass
The complete list can be found in GitHub CI summary, either from Step Summary or in the Artifact.

Conformance comparison report-Cross Commit-LEGACY

	Base (339bd05)	f58b5cf	+/-
% Passing	92.47%	92.47%	0.00%
✅ Passing	5380	5380	0
❌ Failing	438	438	0
🔶 Ignored	0	0	0
Total Tests	5818	5818	0
Number passing in both: 5380

Number failing in both: 438

Number passing in Base (339bd05) but now fail: 0

Number failing in Base (339bd05) but now pass: 0

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

❗ No coverage uploaded for pull request base (partiql-eval@8f3c7f2). Click here to learn what that means.

Additional details and impacted files

@@               Coverage Diff               @@
##             partiql-eval    #1371   +/-   ##
===============================================
  Coverage                ?   50.32%           
  Complexity              ?     1045           
===============================================
  Files                   ?      165           
  Lines                   ?    13129           
  Branches                ?     2452           
===============================================
  Hits                    ?     6607           
  Misses                  ?     5862           
  Partials                ?      660           

Flag	Coverage Δ
CLI	13.77% <ø> (?)
EXAMPLES	80.28% <ø> (?)
LANG	54.71% <ø> (?)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[rchowell]

LIMIT NULL is not the same as LIMIT 0.

I had originally modeled LIMIT..OFFSET as the FETCH operator, because FETCH is defined in the SQL specification whereas LIMIT and OFFSET are not actually defined the SQL spec (92 or 99).

However, PartiQL allows for OFFSET without LIMIT hence why I split them into their own operators. I don't think we should consolidate, but if that is agreed to be better then it should at least be called FETCH