SQL 89 syntax being translated to SQL 92 has the ON portion of the join in the wrong place when there are multiple tables.

Example source query:

select sum(Table3.sales) as c1,
Table1.customer_id as c2,
Table1.customer_name as c3,
Table2.store_id as c4
from
dim_customer Table1,
dim_store Table2,
fact_sales Table3
where ( Table1.customer_id = Table3.customer_id
and Table1.customer_id = 3184
and Table2.store_id = Table3.store_id
and Table2.store_id = 9020
and Table3.customer_id = 3184
and Table3.store_id = 9020 )
group by Table1.customer_id, Table1.customer_name, Table2.store_id

is translated to

SELECT SUM(g_2.sales), g_0.customer_id, g_0.customer_name, g_1.store_id
FROM dim_customer g_0
JOIN dim_store g_1
JOIN fact_sales g_2
ON g_1.store_id = g_2.store_id
ON g_0.customer_id = g_2.customer_id
WHERE g_0.customer_id = 3184
AND g_1.store_id = 9020
AND g_2.customer_id = 3184
AND g_2.store_id = 9020
GROUP BY g_0.customer_id, g_0.customer_name, g_1.store_id

Notice the two JOIN... JOIN... followed by two ON... ON... statements. Our database (Impala) doesn't recognize this pattern of join syntax. I haven't tested to determine if it's just Impala that doesn't recognize this syntax (implying a translator bug) or core query parsing. Expected query should be something close to:

SELECT SUM(g_2.sales), g_0.customer_id, g_0.customer_name, g_1.store_id
FROM dim_customer g_0
JOIN fact_sales g_2
ON g_0.customer_id = g_2.customer_id
JOIN dim_store g_1
ON g_1.store_id = g_2.store_id
WHERE g_0.customer_id = 3184
AND g_1.store_id = 9020
AND g_2.customer_id = 3184
AND g_2.store_id = 9020
GROUP BY g_0.customer_id, g_0.customer_name, g_1.store_id