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

fix row key not in standard format #7901

Merged
merged 10 commits into from Aug 8, 2023

Conversation

lidezhu
Copy link
Contributor

@lidezhu lidezhu commented Aug 4, 2023

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: close #3099 close #7762

Problem Summary: For int handle, the standard row key format should be t{tidb_id}_r{row_id}, but the cluster may generate keys not strictly adhere to this format. For example, it may append a 0x00 to the encoded value.
When tiflash decode the key, it will ignore the suffix 0x00 and may get an invalid row key value.

What is changed and how it works?

For row key which size is larger than the standard format, we add 1 on the decoded int key value.
This is ok, because

  1. if the key is the start range, then [t100_r1000 + 0x00, xxx) has the same semantics with [t100_r1001, xxx)
  2. if the key is the end range, then [xxx, t100_r1000 + 0x00) also has the same semantics with [xxx, t100_r1001)

Note if the decoded int value is Int64::max_value, it is a value generated by tiflash itself which is RowKeyValue::INT_HANDLE_MAX_KEY. This is a special key to means +inf, so we can just ignore it.

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

Fix the potential consistency problem when the int type row key value is not in standard encoding format

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot added do-not-merge/needs-linked-issue release-note-none size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Aug 4, 2023
@lidezhu
Copy link
Contributor Author

lidezhu commented Aug 4, 2023

/run-all-tests

1 similar comment
@lidezhu
Copy link
Contributor Author

lidezhu commented Aug 4, 2023

/run-all-tests

@lidezhu
Copy link
Contributor Author

lidezhu commented Aug 4, 2023

/run-all-tests

1 similar comment
@lidezhu
Copy link
Contributor Author

lidezhu commented Aug 4, 2023

/run-all-tests

@lidezhu
Copy link
Contributor Author

lidezhu commented Aug 5, 2023

/run-unit-test

@lidezhu
Copy link
Contributor Author

lidezhu commented Aug 5, 2023

/run-all-tests

@lidezhu lidezhu changed the title fix region range key not in standard format fix row key not in standard format Aug 7, 2023
@lidezhu
Copy link
Contributor Author

lidezhu commented Aug 7, 2023

/run-all-tests

@lidezhu
Copy link
Contributor Author

lidezhu commented Aug 7, 2023

/run-integration-test

@ti-chi-bot
Copy link
Contributor

ti-chi-bot bot commented Aug 8, 2023

[LGTM Timeline notifier]

Timeline:

  • 2023-08-08 03:07:32.586674622 +0000 UTC m=+2473.691482256: ☑️ agreed by breezewish.
  • 2023-08-08 03:56:10.770814534 +0000 UTC m=+5391.875622168: ☑️ agreed by flowbehappy.

@lidezhu
Copy link
Contributor Author

lidezhu commented Aug 8, 2023

/merge

@lidezhu
Copy link
Contributor Author

lidezhu commented Aug 8, 2023

/run-all-tests

@lidezhu
Copy link
Contributor Author

lidezhu commented Aug 8, 2023

/hold

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Aug 8, 2023
@lidezhu
Copy link
Contributor Author

lidezhu commented Aug 8, 2023

/run-all-tests

@lidezhu
Copy link
Contributor Author

lidezhu commented Aug 8, 2023

/unhold

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Aug 8, 2023
@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot merged commit 7dccf2c into pingcap:master Aug 8, 2023
6 checks passed
@lidezhu lidezhu deleted the fix-invalid-range-key branch August 8, 2023 05:54
@ti-chi-bot
Copy link
Member

In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch release-5.3: #7908.

ti-chi-bot pushed a commit to ti-chi-bot/tiflash that referenced this pull request Aug 8, 2023
Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <ti-community-prow-bot@tidb.io>
@ti-chi-bot
Copy link
Member

In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch release-5.4: #7909.

ti-chi-bot pushed a commit to ti-chi-bot/tiflash that referenced this pull request Aug 8, 2023
Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <ti-community-prow-bot@tidb.io>
@ti-chi-bot
Copy link
Member

In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch release-6.1: #7910.

ti-chi-bot pushed a commit to ti-chi-bot/tiflash that referenced this pull request Aug 8, 2023
Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <ti-community-prow-bot@tidb.io>
@ti-chi-bot
Copy link
Member

In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch release-6.5: #7911.

ti-chi-bot pushed a commit to ti-chi-bot/tiflash that referenced this pull request Aug 8, 2023
Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <ti-community-prow-bot@tidb.io>
@ti-chi-bot
Copy link
Member

In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch release-7.1: #7912.

ti-chi-bot bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 8, 2023
ti-chi-bot bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 9, 2023
ti-chi-bot bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 9, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved lgtm needs-cherry-pick-release-5.3 Type: Need cherry pick to release-5.3 needs-cherry-pick-release-5.4 Type: Need cherry pick to release-5.4 needs-cherry-pick-release-6.1 Type: Need cherry pick to release-6.1 needs-cherry-pick-release-6.5 needs-cherry-pick-release-7.1 release-note size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

TiFlash has less rows than TiKV TiFlash is incompatible with the split keys with TiSpark
4 participants