[FLINK-22063][table] Fix bug that some join conditions are lost when …

[cshuo]

…building Lookup Join ExecNode

What is the purpose of the change

Fix bug that some join conditions are lost when building remaining condition of LookupJoin.

Root Cause:
Considering the join key pairs are l.a = r.e and l.b = r.e, we use Map<lookup_key, left_key> as allLookupKeys information, because lookup keys should be deduplicated. In this case we get <r.e, l.a>.

When building remaining conditions, the expected remaining condition should be l.b = r.e, but currently, we check whether the right key of key-pairs is in allLookupKeys, which leading to an empty result. This can be fixed by checking left key of
key-pairs instead.

Brief change log

• Fix bug of CommonPhysicalLookupJoin when building remainingCondition

Verifying this change

• Add plan test.

Does this pull request potentially affect one of the following parts:

• Dependencies (does it add or upgrade a dependency): no
• The public API, i.e., is any changed class annotated with @Public(Evolving): no
• The serializers: no
• The runtime per-record code paths (performance sensitive): no
• Anything that affects deployment or recovery: JobManager (and its components), Checkpointing, Kubernetes/Yarn/Mesos, ZooKeeper: no
• The S3 file system connector: no

Documentation

• Does this pull request introduce a new feature? no

[cshuo]

@leonardBang Please have a look at this.

[flinkbot]

Thanks a lot for your contribution to the Apache Flink project. I'm the @flinkbot. I help the community
to review your pull request. We will use this comment to track the progress of the review.

Automated Checks

Last check on commit d5d2090 (Fri May 28 09:06:18 UTC 2021)

Warnings:

• No documentation files were touched! Remember to keep the Flink docs up to date!

_{Mention the bot in a comment to re-run the automated checks.}

Review Progress

• ❓ 1. The [description] looks good.
• ❓ 2. There is [consensus] that the contribution should go into to Flink.
• ❓ 3. Needs [attention] from.
• ❓ 4. The change fits into the overall [architecture].
• ❓ 5. Overall code [quality] is good.

Please see the Pull Request Review Guide for a full explanation of the review process.

Details

The Bot is tracking the review progress through labels. Labels are applied according to the order of the review items. For consensus, approval by a Flink committer of PMC member is required

Bot commands

The @flinkbot bot supports the following commands:

• @flinkbot approve description to approve one or more aspects (aspects: description, consensus, architecture and quality)
• @flinkbot approve all to approve all aspects
• @flinkbot approve-until architecture to approve everything until architecture
• @flinkbot attention @username1 [@username2 ..] to require somebody's attention
• @flinkbot disapprove architecture to remove an approval you gave earlier

[flinkbot]

CI report:

• d5d2090 Azure: SUCCESS

Bot commands

The @flinkbot bot supports the following commands:

• @flinkbot run travis re-run the last Travis build
• @flinkbot run azure re-run the last Azure build

[leonardBang]

@cshuo Thanks for the fix, the PR looks good, could you help update the note and rebase to latest mater?

[leonardBang]

minor: could you help update the comment to
remaining condition used to filter the joined records (left input record X lookup-ed records)

[leonardBang]

The failed test is not related to this PR, cc @JingsongLi could you help merge?

[JingsongLi]

@cshuo Please add some comments to explain why

[JingsongLi]

Looks good to me.