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

planner, executor: support index merge's order prop push down at the normal way #43881

Merged
merged 16 commits into from Aug 1, 2023

Conversation

winoros
Copy link
Member

@winoros winoros commented May 16, 2023

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: ref #41028, close #43577, close #45387

Problem Summary:

Previously, we used a hack to support the order prop push-down for index merge.

What is changed and how it works?

We put the order prop checking at the regular physical property checking. Making it correct for the optimizer to be notified that the order prop is pushed down.

Check List

Tests

  • Unit test
  • Integration test
  • Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
  • No code

Side effects

  • Performance regression: Consumes more CPU
  • Performance regression: Consumes more Memory
  • Breaking backward compatibility

Documentation

  • Affects user behaviors
  • Contains syntax changes
  • Contains variable changes
  • Contains experimental features
  • Changes MySQL compatibility

Release note

Please refer to Release Notes Language Style Guide to write a quality release note.

None

@ti-chi-bot
Copy link

ti-chi-bot bot commented May 16, 2023

[REVIEW NOTIFICATION]

This pull request has been approved by:

  • Defined2014

To complete the pull request process, please ask the reviewers in the list to review by filling /cc @reviewer in the comment.
After your PR has acquired the required number of LGTMs, you can assign this pull request to the committer in the list by filling /assign @committer in the comment to help you merge this pull request.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Reviewer can indicate their review by submitting an approval review.
Reviewer can cancel approval by submitting a request changes review.

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot added release-note-none size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files. labels May 16, 2023
@winoros winoros force-pushed the support-indexmerge-ordered-scan branch from 9bf9fb5 to 5f8dc44 Compare May 16, 2023 13:41
planner/core/find_best_task.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
planner/core/find_best_task.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Comment on lines 1303 to 1311
// Add sort items for index scan for merge-sort operation between partitions.
byItems := make([]*util.ByItems, 0, len(prop.SortItems))
for _, si := range prop.SortItems {
byItems = append(byItems, &util.ByItems{
Expr: si.Col,
Desc: si.Desc,
})
}
ts.ByItems = byItems
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks like we can pass []*util.ByItems to this function to reduce the repeated code here and in convertToPartialIndexScan.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

PTAL again. The byItems for each partial plan are the same.
Do we need to build new byItems for each of them? It looks like sharing the same one is enough.

planner/core/find_best_task.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label May 22, 2023
@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot added the status/LGT1 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 1. label May 24, 2023
@@ -348,10 +349,9 @@ func (e *IndexMergeReaderExecutor) startPartialIndexWorker(ctx context.Context,
memTracker: e.memTracker,
partitionTableMode: e.partitionTableMode,
prunedPartitions: e.prunedPartitions,
byItems: e.byItems,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks like we don't need to change here.
Because we will set this in PhysicalIndexMergeReader.ByItems (Init()) then IndexMergeReaderExecutor.byItems (buildNoRangeIndexMergeReader), so finally they are the same.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, I want to do the remained part in the later pull.

util/util.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Contributor

@Defined2014 Defined2014 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

UnionScan with IndexMerge also have problems both for normal table and parititon table. We should also fixed it in this PR.

mysql> create table t(a int, b int, c int, key idx(a, c), key idx1(b, c));
Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.02 sec)

mysql> begin;
Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.00 sec)

mysql> insert into t(a, b, c) values (6,6,6),(3,3,3),(9,9,9),(4,4,4),(5,5,5),(7,7,7),(8,8,8);
Query OK, 7 rows affected (0.00 sec)
Records: 7  Duplicates: 0  Warnings: 0

mysql> select * from t where a = 6 or b = 3 order by c limit 10;
+------+------+------+
| a    | b    | c    |
+------+------+------+
|    6 |    6 |    6 |
|    3 |    3 |    3 |
+------+------+------+
2 rows in set (0.01 sec)

Like #45140, and sort result in indexMerge.MemTableReader

@winoros
Copy link
Member Author

winoros commented Jul 5, 2023

This pr can be closed since #45140 is published.

@Defined2014 Defined2014 closed this Jul 6, 2023
@winoros
Copy link
Member Author

winoros commented Jul 7, 2023

The wrong pull is linked. This pull should be reopened

@winoros winoros reopened this Jul 7, 2023
@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot deleted a comment from ti-chi-bot Jul 7, 2023
@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot deleted a comment from ti-chi-bot Jul 7, 2023
@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jul 18, 2023
@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot deleted a comment from ti-chi-bot Jul 18, 2023
@winoros winoros force-pushed the support-indexmerge-ordered-scan branch from ab0c632 to 25dd692 Compare July 19, 2023 11:00
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 19, 2023

Codecov Report

Merging #43881 (ebfc8f4) into master (a53fd2d) will increase coverage by 0.0141%.
The diff coverage is 75.1020%.

Additional details and impacted files
@@               Coverage Diff                @@
##             master     #43881        +/-   ##
================================================
+ Coverage   73.1995%   73.2136%   +0.0141%     
================================================
  Files          1265       1268         +3     
  Lines        390142     390811       +669     
================================================
+ Hits         285582     286127       +545     
- Misses        86243      86336        +93     
- Partials      18317      18348        +31     
Flag Coverage Δ
integration 78.1388% <ø> (?)
unit 73.2051% <75.1020%> (+0.0056%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Components Coverage Δ
dumpling 54.0444% <ø> (ø)
parser 85.0359% <ø> (ø)
br 51.9906% <ø> (ø)

Copy link
Contributor

@Defined2014 Defined2014 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

reset is good since 25dd692d12c04b81fed5514df4d1227ebbebd1a4

@winoros winoros force-pushed the support-indexmerge-ordered-scan branch from 25dd692 to 2c3c27c Compare July 19, 2023 17:45
planner/core/find_best_task.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@@ -935,6 +935,54 @@ func (p *PhysicalLimit) sinkIntoIndexLookUp(t task) bool {
return true
}

func (p *PhysicalLimit) sinkIntoIndexMerge(t task) bool {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I notice that this function is quite similar to sinkIntoIndexLookUp. Can we merge them into one function?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There's some type assertion in the codes. It might introduce more code complexity for the pull. We can left it for next pulls. Such as add a new common interface for the two struct.

Comment on lines 1303 to 1311
// Add sort items for index scan for merge-sort operation between partitions.
byItems := make([]*util.ByItems, 0, len(prop.SortItems))
for _, si := range prop.SortItems {
byItems = append(byItems, &util.ByItems{
Expr: si.Col,
Desc: si.Desc,
})
}
ts.ByItems = byItems
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

PTAL again. The byItems for each partial plan are the same.
Do we need to build new byItems for each of them? It looks like sharing the same one is enough.

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jul 25, 2023
@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jul 25, 2023
planner/core/find_best_task.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
planner/core/find_best_task.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
executor/index_merge_reader.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
winoros and others added 5 commits July 31, 2023 15:18
Co-authored-by: Hangjie Mo <mohangjie1995@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Zhou Kunqin <25057648+time-and-fate@users.noreply.github.com>
@ti-chi-bot
Copy link

ti-chi-bot bot commented Jul 31, 2023

@winoros: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name Commit Details Required Rerun command
pull-br-integration-test 08c86e0 link true /test pull-br-integration-test

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

@ti-chi-bot
Copy link

ti-chi-bot bot commented Aug 1, 2023

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: Defined2014, time-and-fate

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
  • OWNERS [Defined2014,time-and-fate]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@ti-chi-bot
Copy link

ti-chi-bot bot commented Aug 1, 2023

[LGTM Timeline notifier]

Timeline:

  • 2023-07-05 02:43:11.849061025 +0000 UTC m=+171823.782694443: ✖️🔁 reset by Defined2014.
  • 2023-07-31 14:56:37.516490081 +0000 UTC m=+110881.458838598: ☑️ agreed by time-and-fate.
  • 2023-08-01 01:20:38.816828896 +0000 UTC m=+148322.759177428: ☑️ agreed by Defined2014.

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot merged commit 0e068ed into pingcap:master Aug 1, 2023
15 of 18 checks passed
@winoros winoros deleted the support-indexmerge-ordered-scan branch August 1, 2023 13:43
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved lgtm release-note-none size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files. status/LGT1 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 1.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Support keepOrder for memIndexMerge estRows for indexMerge is imprecise in some cases
3 participants