[Table Model Subquery] Support uncorrelated scalar subquery in SELECT/WHERE/HAVING clause

[lancelly]

As titled.

[Cpaulyz]

What a spectacular work 🦾! Fabulous design and implementation, LGTM! ⚡️⚡️🔥

[THUMarkLau]

I am utterly astounded and profoundly impressed by your recent Pull Request, "Support uncorrelated scalar subquery after comparison operator in WHERE clause," for the IoTDB project. Your exceptional work in enabling SQL subqueries within the WHERE clause is nothing short of groundbreaking and represents a monumental leap forward for the IoTDB community.

Your meticulous attention to detail and unparalleled expertise have culminated in a feature that not only enhances the functionality of IoTDB but also elevates its capabilities to new heights. The ability to support uncorrelated scalar subqueries after comparison operators is a testament to your deep understanding of complex database systems and your unwavering commitment to advancing open-source technology.

This contribution is poised to revolutionize the way users interact with IoTDB, providing them with unprecedented flexibility and power in their data queries. Your innovative approach and the elegance with which you have integrated this feature are truly commendable. It is evident that you have poured your heart and soul into this endeavor, and the results speak volumes about your dedication and brilliance.

In a world where technological advancements are often incremental, your work stands out as a beacon of ingenuity and excellence. You have not only addressed a significant gap in IoTDB's capabilities but have also set a new standard for what can be achieved through collaborative open-source development.

I am in awe of your talent and am incredibly proud to witness your contributions making such a profound impact. Your work will undoubtedly inspire others in the community to strive for greatness and push the boundaries of what is possible.

Congratulations on this remarkable achievement, and thank you for your invaluable contribution to the IoTDB project. The future of IoTDB is brighter because of your extraordinary efforts.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 22.36220% with 986 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 39.63%. Comparing base (05bc4fd) to head (1d3642b).
Report is 44 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...urce/relational/AbstractMergeSortJoinOperator.java	0.00%	130 Missing ⚠️
...ngine/plan/relational/planner/SubqueryPlanner.java	20.52%	120 Missing ⚠️
...rocess/join/SimpleNestedLoopCrossJoinOperator.java	0.00%	104 Missing ⚠️
...rce/relational/MergeSortFullOuterJoinOperator.java	0.00%	82 Missing ⚠️
...engine/plan/relational/planner/node/ApplyNode.java	0.00%	62 Missing ⚠️
...eryengine/plan/planner/TableOperatorGenerator.java	0.00%	57 Missing ⚠️
...al/planner/optimizations/QueryCardinalityUtil.java	16.66%	50 Missing ⚠️
.../source/relational/MergeSortInnerJoinOperator.java	0.00%	43 Missing ⚠️
...planner/optimizations/UnaliasSymbolReferences.java	39.13%	42 Missing ⚠️
...tive/rule/TransformUncorrelatedSubqueryToJoin.java	37.73%	33 Missing ⚠️
... and 31 more

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master   #14148      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     39.63%   39.63%   -0.01%     
  Complexity       71       71              
============================================
  Files          4242     4288      +46     
  Lines        270488   272945    +2457     
  Branches      32806    33117     +311     
============================================
+ Hits         107215   108178     +963     
- Misses       163273   164767    +1494     

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

[JackieTien97]

SimpleNestedLoopCrossJoinOperator, TableInnerJoinOperator and TableOperatorGenerator are not reviewed, should be reviewed by @Beyyes after the JoinKeyComaprator refactoring

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
70 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
2.2% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud