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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

fix: union distinct between unsharded route and sharded join #12968

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Apr 25, 2023
Merged

fix: union distinct between unsharded route and sharded join #12968

merged 1 commit into from Apr 25, 2023

Conversation

harshit-gangal
Copy link
Member

@harshit-gangal harshit-gangal commented Apr 25, 2023 •
edited

Description

This PR fixes a panic on pushing weight_string function on a join plan over a union operator for distinct planning.

Related Issue(s)

Checklist

  • "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported
  • Tests were added or are not required
  • Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on the CI
  • Documentation was added or is not required

Deployment Notes

@harshit-gangal
fix: union distinct between unsharded route and sharded join
99a6ba0 
Signed-off-by: Harshit Gangal <harshit@planetscale.com>
@vitess-bot vitess-bot bot added NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says labels Apr 25, 2023
@vitess-bot
Copy link
Contributor

vitess-bot bot commented Apr 25, 2023 •
edited by GuptaManan100

Review Checklist

Hello reviewers! 👋 Please follow this checklist when reviewing this Pull Request.

General

  • Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
  • If this is a change that users need to know about, please apply the release notes (needs details) label so that merging is blocked unless the summary release notes document is included.
  • If a test is added or modified, there should be a documentation on top of the test to explain what the expected behavior is what the test does.

If a new flag is being introduced:

  • Is it really necessary to add this flag?
  • Flag names should be clear and intuitive (as far as possible)
  • Help text should be descriptive.
  • Flag names should use dashes (-) as word separators rather than underscores (_).

If a workflow is added or modified:

  • Each item in Jobs should be named in order to mark it as required.
  • If the workflow should be required, the maintainer team should be notified.

Bug fixes

  • There should be at least one unit or end-to-end test.
  • The Pull Request description should include a link to an issue that describes the bug.

Non-trivial changes

  • There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.

New/Existing features

  • Should be documented, either by modifying the existing documentation or creating new documentation.
  • New features should have a link to a feature request issue or an RFC that documents the use cases, corner cases and test cases.

Backward compatibility

  • Protobuf changes should be wire-compatible.
  • Changes to _vt tables and RPCs need to be backward compatible.
  • vtctl command output order should be stable and awk-able.
  • RPC changes should be compatible with vitess-operator
  • If a flag is removed, then it should also be removed from VTop, if used there.

@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v17.0.0 milestone Apr 25, 2023
@harshit-gangal harshit-gangal removed NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work labels Apr 25, 2023
@harshit-gangal harshit-gangal marked this pull request as ready for review April 25, 2023 14:12
GuptaManan100
GuptaManan100 reviewed Apr 25, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@GuptaManan100 GuptaManan100 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The other changes look fine to me.

go/vt/vtgate/planbuilder/operator_transformers.go
Comment on lines -575 to -579
expr := node.OutputColumns()[offset]
aliasedExpr, isAliased := expr.(*sqlparser.AliasedExpr)
if !isAliased {
return 0, vterrors.VT13001("cannot convert JOIN output columns to an aliased-expression")
}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Don't we need this check anymore?

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 was no test for it.
I think I can add a case and put this back in.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

not able to come up with the test.
It can either be
aliasexpr or starExpr. For starExpr on sharded join query we fail early.

@harshit-gangal harshit-gangal merged commit b141c97 into vitessio:main Apr 25, 2023
113 of 116 checks passed
@harshit-gangal harshit-gangal deleted the weight_string_index branch April 25, 2023 18:35
@vitess-bot vitess-bot bot mentioned this pull request Apr 25, 2023
Merged
@vitess-bot
Copy link
Contributor

vitess-bot bot commented Apr 25, 2023

I was unable to backport this Pull Request to the following branches: release-14.0, release-15.0.

@frouioui
Copy link
Member

@harshit-gangal backports are missing here

This was referenced Apr 26, 2023
Merged
Merged
harshit-gangal added a commit that referenced this pull request May 2, 2023
@harshit-gangal
[release-14.0] fix: union distinct between unsharded route and sharde…
a264a27 
…d join (#12968) (#12983)

* fix: union distinct between unsharded route and sharded join

Signed-off-by: Harshit Gangal <harshit@planetscale.com>

* test: removed TablesUsed from the expected output

Signed-off-by: Harshit Gangal <harshit@planetscale.com>

---------

Signed-off-by: Harshit Gangal <harshit@planetscale.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@GuptaManan100 GuptaManan100 GuptaManan100 approved these changes

@frouioui frouioui frouioui approved these changes

@systay systay Awaiting requested review from systay systay is a code owner

@arthurschreiber arthurschreiber Awaiting requested review from arthurschreiber arthurschreiber is a code owner

@deepthi deepthi Awaiting requested review from deepthi deepthi is a code owner

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
Component: Query Serving Type: Bug
Projects
None yet
Milestone
v17.0.0
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Bug Report: Union Query have unsharded and sharded join panics
3 participants
@harshit-gangal @frouioui @GuptaManan100