What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. Turn on printing for applied query rules.
2. Run this query:
{ "overlap1": get-overlapping-interval(interval-from-time(time("11:23:39"),
time("11:27:19")), interval-from-time(time("12:23:39"), time("23:18:00"))),
"overlap2": get-overlapping-interval(interval-from-time(time("12:23:39"), time("18:27:19")), interval-from-time(time("07:19:39"), time("09:18:00"))),
"overlap3": get-overlapping-interval(interval-from-date(date("1980-11-30"), date("1999-09-09")), interval-from-date(date("2013-01-01"), date("2014-01-01"))),
"overlap4": get-overlapping-interval(interval-from-date(date("1980-11-30"), date("2099-09-09")), interval-from-date(date("2013-01-01"), date("2014-01-01"))),
"overlap5": get-overlapping-interval(interval-from-datetime(datetime("1844-03-03T11:19:39"), datetime("2000-10-30T18:27:19")), interval-from-datetime(datetime("1989-03-04T12:23:39"), datetime("2009-10-10T23:18:00"))),
"overlap6": get-overlapping-interval(interval-from-datetime(datetime("1989-03-04T12:23:39"), datetime("2000-10-30T18:27:19")), interval-from-datetime(datetime("1844-03-03T11:19:39"), datetime("1888-10-10T23:18:00"))) }
What is the expected output? What do you see instead?
The constant folding rule should show that it folded the
"asterix:get-overlapping-interval" function. Yet, the query plan is just
updated without registering that the constant folding rule altered the plan.
Please use labels and text to provide additional information.
Original issue reported on code.google.com by ecarm...@ucr.edu on 19 Mar 2015 at 4:52
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
ecarm...@ucr.edu
on 19 Mar 2015 at 4:52