Inserting only non-duplicate chunks in MV

[priera]

Changelog category (leave one):

• Bug Fix

Changelog entry (a user-readable short description of the changes that goes to CHANGELOG.md):

Fixed error that prevented insertion in replicated MV of new data in presence of duplicated data

[priera]

Technical description, feel free to comment or make any follow-up question.

This PR aims to fix the following case: when data is inserted in a replicated table, it may not be inserted in an associated MV if some of it (but not all) is duplicated.

As a quick example, if we have a table landing, with a target MV mv, the following statements won't insert the record ('2021-09-01 11:00:00', 24) in mv. Please refer to the new test for the complete setup

INSERT INTO landing VALUES ('2020-01-01 13:23:34', 24);
INSERT INTO landing VALUES ('2021-09-01 11:00:00', 24), ('2020-01-01 13:23:34', 24);

Currently neither the case Last block is duplicate nor One block is duplicate (changed setting) pass in master. In both of them the new data is inserted in the table but not in the MV, since some of the blocks are duplicated.

The approach followed in order to solve this has been to change the behavior of the class ReplicatedMergeTreeSinkImpl: the variable last_block_is_duplicate could prevent data from moving to the next stages of the query pipeline. Instead of using this variable, the class now builds a new chunk with just the non-duplicated data that will be forwarded to the next stages of the query graph.

As a bit of simplification due to these changes, I removed the method lastBlockIsDuplicate since doesn't seem to be necessary now. The changes applied in SinkToStorage seem to only directly affect the derived class ReplicatedMergeTreeSinkImpl

[robot-clickhouse-ci-1]

This is an automated comment for commit ec1f7b3 with description of existing statuses. It's updated for the latest CI running

❌ Click here to open a full report in a separate page

Successful checks

Check name	Description	Status
AST fuzzer	Runs randomly generated queries to catch program errors. The build type is optionally given in parenthesis. If it fails, ask a maintainer for help	✅ success
Bugfix validate check	Checks that either a new test (functional or integration) or there some changed tests that fail with the binary built on master branch	✅ success
ClickHouse build check	Builds ClickHouse in various configurations for use in further steps. You have to fix the builds that fail. Build logs often has enough information to fix the error, but you might have to reproduce the failure locally. The cmake options can be found in the build log, grepping for cmake. Use these options and follow the general build process	✅ success
Compatibility check	Checks that clickhouse binary runs on distributions with old libc versions. If it fails, ask a maintainer for help	✅ success
Docker image for servers	The check to build and optionally push the mentioned image to docker hub	✅ success
Fast test	Normally this is the first check that is ran for a PR. It builds ClickHouse and runs most of stateless functional tests, omitting some. If it fails, further checks are not started until it is fixed. Look at the report to see which tests fail, then reproduce the failure locally as described here	✅ success
Flaky tests	Checks if new added or modified tests are flaky by running them repeatedly, in parallel, with more randomization. Functional tests are run 100 times with address sanitizer, and additional randomization of thread scheduling. Integrational tests are run up to 10 times. If at least once a new test has failed, or was too long, this check will be red. We don't allow flaky tests, read the doc	✅ success
Install packages	Checks that the built packages are installable in a clear environment	✅ success
Mergeable Check	Checks if all other necessary checks are successful	✅ success
Performance Comparison	Measure changes in query performance. The performance test report is described in detail here. In square brackets are the optional part/total tests	✅ success
Push to Dockerhub	The check for building and pushing the CI related docker images to docker hub	✅ success
SQLTest	There's no description for the check yet, please add it to tests/ci/ci_config.py:CHECK_DESCRIPTIONS	✅ success
SQLancer	Fuzzing tests that detect logical bugs with SQLancer tool	✅ success
Sqllogic	Run clickhouse on the sqllogic test set against sqlite and checks that all statements are passed	✅ success
Stateful tests	Runs stateful functional tests for ClickHouse binaries built in various configurations -- release, debug, with sanitizers, etc	✅ success
Stateless tests	Runs stateless functional tests for ClickHouse binaries built in various configurations -- release, debug, with sanitizers, etc	✅ success
Stress test	Runs stateless functional tests concurrently from several clients to detect concurrency-related errors	✅ success
Style Check	Runs a set of checks to keep the code style clean. If some of tests failed, see the related log from the report	✅ success
Unit tests	Runs the unit tests for different release types	✅ success
Upgrade check	Runs stress tests on server version from last release and then tries to upgrade it to the version from the PR. It checks if the new server can successfully startup without any errors, crashes or sanitizer asserts	✅ success

Check name	Description	Status
CI running	A meta-check that indicates the running CI. Normally, it's in success or pending state. The failed status indicates some problems with the PR	⏳ pending
Integration tests	The integration tests report. In parenthesis the package type is given, and in square brackets are the optional part/total tests	❌ failure

[den-crane]

Interesting, probably it was the cause of lot of issues with the inconsistency between MatView and source table.

[priera]

Thanks to the test 01825_type_json_2 I noticed that my solution didn't work for tables with object columns. I'm working on a slightly different approach, and will push it early next week

[priera]

After checking, just one test failed test_backup_restore_on_cluster/test.py::test_stop_other_host_during_backup[True], within the Integration tests (asan) [5/6] suite.

Same test ran successfully in other suites: asan-analyzer, release, tsan... I checked the logs and the errors don't seem related to sanitizing at all, instead there are exceptions of the kind: DB::Exception: Backup Disk('backups', '1') is being written already. (BACKUP_ALREADY_EXISTS) I think is possible this was a momentary error related to the environment where the test was running

[hanfei1991]

How about checking this outside? so that we do not have to pass context