[CALCITE-7337] Add age function (enabled in PostgreSQL library) #4712

cjj2010 · 2025-12-29T04:47:55Z

jira：https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/CALCITE/issues/CALCITE-7337

we can refer postgresql document about Position:

https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/functions-datetime.html

xiedeyantu · 2025-12-29T05:48:32Z

Postgresql -> PostgreSQL

<html>
<body>
<!--StartFragment-->
SqlUnParserTest > testPrecedenceSetOps() STANDARD_OUT
--
  |   |   | invalid git log message 'Add age function (enabled in Postgresql library)'; Message contains 'Postgresql' word; use one of the following instead: [PostgreSQL]
  |   |   | FAILURE   0.2sec, org.apache.calcite.test.LintTest > testLintLog()
  |   |   | java.lang.AssertionError:
  |   |   | Expected: an empty collection
  |   |   | but: <[invalid git log message 'Add age function (enabled in Postgresql library)'; Message contains 'Postgresql' word; use one of the following instead: [PostgreSQL]]>
  |   |   | at org.hamcrest.MatcherAssert.assertThat(MatcherAssert.java:18)
  |   |   | at org.hamcrest.MatcherAssert.assertThat(MatcherAssert.java:6)
  |   |   | at org.apache.calcite.test.LintTest.testLintLog(LintTest.java:308)

<!--EndFragment-->
</body>
</html>

cjj2010 · 2025-12-29T08:05:44Z

Postgresql -> PostgreSQL

<html>
<body>
<!--StartFragment-->
SqlUnParserTest > testPrecedenceSetOps() STANDARD_OUT
--
  |   |   | invalid git log message 'Add age function (enabled in Postgresql library)'; Message contains 'Postgresql' word; use one of the following instead: [PostgreSQL]
  |   |   | FAILURE   0.2sec, org.apache.calcite.test.LintTest > testLintLog()
  |   |   | java.lang.AssertionError:
  |   |   | Expected: an empty collection
  |   |   | but: <[invalid git log message 'Add age function (enabled in Postgresql library)'; Message contains 'Postgresql' word; use one of the following instead: [PostgreSQL]]>
  |   |   | at org.hamcrest.MatcherAssert.assertThat(MatcherAssert.java:18)
  |   |   | at org.hamcrest.MatcherAssert.assertThat(MatcherAssert.java:6)
  |   |   | at org.apache.calcite.test.LintTest.testLintLog(LintTest.java:308)

<!--EndFragment-->
</body>
</html>

done, thanks

xiedeyantu · 2025-12-30T01:26:11Z

core/src/main/java/org/apache/calcite/runtime/SqlFunctions.java

  }
+
+  /** SQL {@code AGE(timestamp1, timestamp2)} function. */
+  private static String age(long timestamp1, long timestamp2) {


Please take a look at this code and see if it meets your requirements. I tested it locally, and it passed your test cases. The current code implementation seems somewhat unclear.

public static String age(long timestamp1, long timestamp2) { ZonedDateTime zdt1 = Instant.ofEpochMilli(timestamp1) .atZone(ZoneOffset.UTC); ZonedDateTime zdt2 = Instant.ofEpochMilli(timestamp2) .atZone(ZoneOffset.UTC); Period period = Period.between(zdt2.toLocalDate(), zdt1.toLocalDate()); Duration duration = Duration.between(zdt2, zdt1); int years = period.getYears(); int months = period.getMonths(); int days = period.getDays(); long totalSeconds = duration.getSeconds(); long hours = (totalSeconds / 3600) % 24; long minutes = (totalSeconds / 60) % 60; long seconds = totalSeconds % 60; long millis = duration.toMillis() % 1000; return String.format(Locale.ROOT, "%d years %d mons %d days %d hours %d mins %.1f secs", years, months, days, hours, minutes, seconds + millis / 1000.0 ); }

ZonedDateTime zdt1 = Instant.ofEpochMilli(timestamp1)
.atZone(ZoneOffset.UTC);
ZonedDateTime zdt2 = Instant.ofEpochMilli(timestamp2)
.atZone(ZoneOffset.UTC);

Period period = Period.between(zdt2.toLocalDate(), zdt1.toLocalDate()); Duration duration = Duration.between(zdt2, zdt1); int years = period.getYears(); int months = period.getMonths(); int days = period.getDays(); long totalSeconds = duration.getSeconds(); long hours = (totalSeconds / 3600) % 24; long minutes = (totalSeconds / 60) % 60; long seconds = totalSeconds % 60; long millis = duration.toMillis() % 1000;

Thank you very much for your suggestion. The above code is being executed
SELECT AGE(timestamp '2023-12-25 00:00:00', timestamp '2020-01-01 23:59:59') FROM (VALUES (1)) t， Returned 3 years 11 mons 24 days 0 hours 0 mins 1.0 secs, but pgSQL returned
3 years 11 mons 23 days 0 hours 0 mins 1.0 secs， This test case did not pass, and one more thing is that String.form seems to be prohibited from use. The code I submitted for the first time did not pass the detection because of its use

Yes, you're right. I think we can just add the test cases I mentioned.

Yes, you're right. I think we can just add the test cases I mentioned.

Thank you for your reminder. We have added new test cases

xiedeyantu · 2025-12-30T01:27:13Z

babel/src/test/java/org/apache/calcite/test/BabelTest.java

+    checkSqlResult("postgresql",
+        "SELECT AGE(timestamp '2023-12-25 00:00:00', timestamp '2020-01-01 23:59:59') FROM (VALUES (1)) t",
+        "EXPR$0=3 years 11 mons 23 days 0 hours 0 mins 1.0 secs\n");
+


I think we should add another test case.

checkSqlResult("postgresql", "SELECT AGE(timestamp '2023-12-25 00:00:00.101', timestamp '2020-01-01 23:59:59.202') FROM (VALUES (1)) t", "EXPR$0=3 years 11 mons 23 days 0 hours 0 mins 0.9 secs\n");

xiedeyantu · 2025-12-30T12:31:45Z

It was my oversight; I noticed that the results from pgsql are inconsistent with what you provided. The results you provided resemble the format of duckdb. please see pgsql result.
sql:

SELECT AGE(timestamp '2020-01-01 00:00:10', timestamp '2023-12-25 00:00:00') FROM (VALUES (1)) t;

current pr:

-3 years -11 mons -23 days -23 hours -59 mins -50.0 secs

pgsql:

 -3 years -11 mons -23 days -23:59:50

sonarqubecloud · 2025-12-31T02:09:23Z

Quality Gate passed

Issues
1 New issue
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
96.2% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

cjj2010 · 2025-12-31T02:34:38Z

It was my oversight; I noticed that the results from pgsql are inconsistent with what you provided. The results you provided resemble the format of duckdb. please see pgsql result. sql:
SELECT AGE(timestamp '2020-01-01 00:00:10', timestamp '2023-12-25 00:00:00') FROM (VALUES (1)) t;
current pr:
-3 years -11 mons -23 days -23 hours -59 mins -50.0 secs
pgsql:
 -3 years -11 mons -23 days -23:59:50

I used multiple clients to verify this issue again and found that
The values returned by navicat, dbeaver, and pgadmin are -3 years -11 mons -23 days -23:59:50, as shown in the data grid
-3 years -11 mons -23 days -23 hours -59 mins -50.0 secs， In this situation, I agree that the format you mentioned should be used

cjj2010 · 2025-12-31T02:36:04Z

It was my oversight; I noticed that the results from pgsql are inconsistent with what you provided. The results you provided resemble the format of duckdb. please see pgsql result. sql:
SELECT AGE(timestamp '2020-01-01 00:00:10', timestamp '2023-12-25 00:00:00') FROM (VALUES (1)) t;
current pr:
-3 years -11 mons -23 days -23 hours -59 mins -50.0 secs
pgsql:
 -3 years -11 mons -23 days -23:59:50

I will change the logic of this part later. Thank you for your reminder to make this logic more rigorous

cjj2010 · 2025-12-31T02:36:31Z

It was my oversight; I noticed that the results from pgsql are inconsistent with what you provided. The results you provided resemble the format of duckdb. please see pgsql result. sql:
SELECT AGE(timestamp '2020-01-01 00:00:10', timestamp '2023-12-25 00:00:00') FROM (VALUES (1)) t;
current pr:
-3 years -11 mons -23 days -23 hours -59 mins -50.0 secs
pgsql:
 -3 years -11 mons -23 days -23:59:50

I will change the logic of this part later. Thank you for your reminder to make this logic more rigorous

xuzifu666 · 2025-12-31T03:20:16Z

Because previously closed two related PR, some comments were lost (we can check if some of the changes can be moved to jira or this pr, so that others can understand what you had done, just a suggestion).
If the output format as @xiedeyantu mentioned is correct, I think this PR should be basically completed.

cjj2010 mentioned this pull request Dec 29, 2025

[CALCITE-7337] Add age function (enabled in Postgresql library) #4703

Closed

cjj2010 changed the title ~~[CALCITE-7337] Add age function (enabled in Postgresql library)~~ [CALCITE-7337] Add age function (enabled in PostgreSQL library) Dec 29, 2025

Add age function

255ffc3

cjj2010 force-pushed the age_function branch from e84cd34 to 7b827d7 Compare December 29, 2025 09:11

Change annotation name

4add80f

cjj2010 force-pushed the age_function branch from 7b827d7 to 4add80f Compare December 29, 2025 09:12

Terran added 2 commits December 29, 2025 18:31

Fix AGE function test stability for single parameter case

992f434

Fix code format

8173111

xiedeyantu reviewed Dec 30, 2025

View reviewed changes

Add test cases and optimize case format

ff57f70

[CALCITE-7337] Add age function (enabled in PostgreSQL library) #4712

Are you sure you want to change the base?

[CALCITE-7337] Add age function (enabled in PostgreSQL library) #4712

Conversation

cjj2010 commented Dec 29, 2025

Uh oh!

xiedeyantu commented Dec 29, 2025

Uh oh!

cjj2010 commented Dec 29, 2025

Uh oh!

xiedeyantu Dec 30, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

cjj2010 Dec 30, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

xiedeyantu Dec 30, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

cjj2010 Dec 31, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

xiedeyantu Dec 30, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

xiedeyantu commented Dec 30, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

sonarqubecloud bot commented Dec 31, 2025

Quality Gate passed

Uh oh!

cjj2010 commented Dec 31, 2025

Uh oh!

cjj2010 commented Dec 31, 2025

Uh oh!

cjj2010 commented Dec 31, 2025

Uh oh!

xuzifu666 commented Dec 31, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

xiedeyantu commented Dec 30, 2025 •

edited

Loading

xuzifu666 commented Dec 31, 2025 •

edited

Loading