Skip to content

feat: support nanosecond date_part#20674

Merged
alamb merged 4 commits intoapache:mainfrom
mhilton:issue-20671
Mar 4, 2026
Merged

feat: support nanosecond date_part#20674
alamb merged 4 commits intoapache:mainfrom
mhilton:issue-20671

Conversation

@mhilton
Copy link
Contributor

@mhilton mhilton commented Mar 3, 2026

Support using 'nanosecond' as a part in the date_part function. If nanosecond is requested then the date_part will return the seconds, and smaller units, scaled to nanoseconds. This is consistent with the behaviour of 'millisecond' and 'microsecond'. In order to accomodate the required range of results, a request for 'nanosecond' will return a 64-bit integer, rather than a 32-bit integer as is returned for everything else (except 'epoch').

Which issue does this PR close?

Rationale for this change

The feature is a) useful & b) documented

What changes are included in this PR?

Are these changes tested?

Yes, some added and modified SLT tests.

Are there any user-facing changes?

Only in as much as the implementation now matches the documentation (for this specific case).

Support using 'nanosecond' as a part in the date_part function. If
nanosecond is requested then the date_part will return the seconds, and
smaller units, scaled to nanoseconds. This is consistent with the
behaviour of 'millisecond' and 'microsecond'. In order to accomodate the
required range of results, a request for 'nanosecond' will return a
64-bit integer, rather than a 32-bit integer as is returned for
everything else (except 'epoch').
@github-actions github-actions bot added sqllogictest SQL Logic Tests (.slt) functions Changes to functions implementation labels Mar 3, 2026
Copy link
Contributor

@alamb alamb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good to me -- thanks @mhilton

matches!(part.to_lowercase().as_str(), "epoch")
}

fn is_nanosecond(part: &str) -> bool {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is it worth adding a note that this is required due to the fact that nanosecond needs a different return type

let subsecs = as_int32_array(subsecs.as_ref())?;

// Special case where there are no nulls.
if subsecs.null_count() == 0 {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Would it be safer to also check sec.nulls too? It does feel like any nulls in subsecs would also be in secs and vica versa

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I re-reviewed the code and since they both come from calling arrow date_part I don't think this is necessary

12123456

query error DataFusion error: This feature is not implemented: Date part Nanosecond not supported
query I
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nice

.zip(subsecs)
.map(|(secs, subsecs)| {
secs.map(|secs| {
let subsecs = subsecs.unwrap_or(0);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I didn't see any test coverage of nulls 🤔 -- maybe we can add some

@alamb
Copy link
Contributor

alamb commented Mar 4, 2026

I took the liberty of adding some comments and a few more tests

@alamb alamb added this pull request to the merge queue Mar 4, 2026
Merged via the queue into apache:main with commit b0349ff Mar 4, 2026
30 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

functions Changes to functions implementation sqllogictest SQL Logic Tests (.slt)

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

date_part should support a nanosecond part

2 participants