Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

release-21.2: opt: fix min cardinality calculation of EXCEPT #89132

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 4, 2022

Conversation

blathers-crl[bot]
Copy link

@blathers-crl blathers-crl bot commented Sep 30, 2022

Backport 1/1 commits from #89108 on behalf of @rytaft.

/cc @cockroachdb/release


Prior to this commit, we assumed that the minimum cardinality of EXCEPT could never be lower than the minimum cardinality of the left side minus the maximum cardinality of the right side. However, this assumption is only true for EXCEPT ALL, not EXCEPT.

For example, VALUES (1), (1) EXCEPT VALUES (1) produces 0 rows, even though the left side produces more rows than the right. Because of this invalid assumption, the optimizer could make some invalid transformations, resulting in incorrect results.

Fixes #89101

Release note (bug fix): Fixed a bug that has existed since v2.1.0 where queries containing a subquery with EXCEPT could produce incorrect results. This could happen if the optimizer could guarantee that the left side of the EXCEPT always returned more rows than the right side. In this case, the optimizer made a faulty assupmtion that the EXCEPT subquery always returned at least one row, which could cause the optimizer to perform an invalid transformation, possibly causing the full query to return incorrect results.


Release justification: low risk fix for correctness issue

Prior to this commit, we assumed that the minimum cardinality of
EXCEPT could never be lower than the minimum cardinality of the
left side minus the maximum cardinality of the right side.
However, this assumption is only true for EXCEPT ALL, not EXCEPT.

For example, VALUES (1), (1) EXCEPT VALUES (1) produces 0 rows,
even though the left side produces more rows than the right.
Because of this invalid assumption, the optimizer could make some
invalid transformations, resulting in incorrect results.

Fixes #89101

Release note (bug fix): Fixed a bug that has existed since v2.1.0
where queries containing a subquery with EXCEPT could produce
incorrect results. This could happen if the optimizer could guarantee
that the left side of the EXCEPT always returned more rows than the
right side. In this case, the optimizer made a faulty assupmtion that
the EXCEPT subquery always returned at least one row, which could cause
the optimizer to perform an invalid transformation, possibly causing
the full query to return incorrect results.
@blathers-crl blathers-crl bot requested a review from a team as a code owner September 30, 2022 23:51
@blathers-crl blathers-crl bot force-pushed the blathers/backport-release-21.2-89108 branch from c5076dc to d5c2318 Compare September 30, 2022 23:51
@blathers-crl
Copy link
Author

blathers-crl bot commented Sep 30, 2022

Thanks for opening a backport.

Please check the backport criteria before merging:

  • Patches should only be created for serious issues or test-only changes.
  • Patches should not break backwards-compatibility.
  • Patches should change as little code as possible.
  • Patches should not change on-disk formats or node communication protocols.
  • Patches should not add new functionality.
  • Patches must not add, edit, or otherwise modify cluster versions; or add version gates.
If some of the basic criteria cannot be satisfied, ensure that the exceptional criteria are satisfied within.
  • There is a high priority need for the functionality that cannot wait until the next release and is difficult to address in another way.
  • The new functionality is additive-only and only runs for clusters which have specifically “opted in” to it (e.g. by a cluster setting).
  • New code is protected by a conditional check that is trivial to verify and ensures that it only runs for opt-in clusters.
  • The PM and TL on the team that owns the changed code have signed off that the change obeys the above rules.

Add a brief release justification to the body of your PR to justify this backport.

Some other things to consider:

  • What did we do to ensure that a user that doesn’t know & care about this backport, has no idea that it happened?
  • Will this work in a cluster of mixed patch versions? Did we test that?
  • If a user upgrades a patch version, uses this feature, and then downgrades, what happens?

@blathers-crl blathers-crl bot added blathers-backport This is a backport that Blathers created automatically. O-robot Originated from a bot. labels Sep 30, 2022
@cockroach-teamcity
Copy link
Member

This change is Reviewable

@rytaft rytaft merged commit 7ab6df7 into release-21.2 Oct 4, 2022
@rytaft rytaft deleted the blathers/backport-release-21.2-89108 branch October 4, 2022 19:41
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
blathers-backport This is a backport that Blathers created automatically. O-robot Originated from a bot.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants