-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.8k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
fix(cubesql): Calculate proper limit and offset for CubeScan in nested limits case #8924
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #8924 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 82.55% 82.66% +0.11%
==========================================
Files 221 222 +1
Lines 77703 78244 +541
==========================================
+ Hits 64146 64681 +535
- Misses 13557 13563 +6
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎ 8 Skipped Deployments
|
3fe9ab9
to
80ea85b
Compare
80ea85b
to
f926c8c
Compare
Check List
Description of Changes Made (if issue reference is not provided)
Before this in
Limit(Limit(CubeScan))
logical plan outer fetch and skip values would win.Not they are calculated properly.