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

Refactor Join Predicate Handling in Planner #17877

Open
wants to merge 18 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

systay
Copy link
Collaborator

@systay systay commented Feb 28, 2025

Description

This pull request refactors the planner to enhance join predicate management. Previously, we would skip already pushed down predicates when merging join inputs into a single route and then push down new predicates. With this change, we’re introducing a predicate tracker to manage and adjust the predicates that have been pushed to the right-hand side of the join. This simplifies the code and we can get use smaller operator trees and less state in the planning context.

Related Issue(s)

This depends on #17875

Checklist

  • "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported to release branches
  • If this change is to be back-ported to previous releases, a justification is included in the PR description
  • Tests were added or are not required
  • Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on CI?
  • Documentation was added or is not required

Copy link
Contributor

vitess-bot bot commented Feb 28, 2025

Review Checklist

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

General

  • Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
  • Ensure there is a link to an issue (except for internal cleanup and flaky test fixes), new features should have an RFC that documents use cases and test cases.

Tests

  • Bug fixes should have at least one unit or end-to-end test, enhancement and new features should have a sufficient number of tests.

Documentation

  • Apply the release notes (needs details) label if users need to know about this change.
  • New features should be documented.
  • There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.
  • There should be a comment at the top of each new or modified test to explain what the test does.

New flags

  • Is this flag really necessary?
  • Flag names must be clear and intuitive, use dashes (-), and have a clear help text.

If a workflow is added or modified:

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

Backward compatibility

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

@vitess-bot vitess-bot bot added NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says labels Feb 28, 2025
@systay systay added Type: Internal Cleanup Component: Query Serving and removed NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required labels Feb 28, 2025
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v22.0.0 milestone Feb 28, 2025
Signed-off-by: Andres Taylor <[email protected]>
@systay systay marked this pull request as ready for review March 3, 2025 06:43
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 3, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 83.46457% with 21 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 67.52%. Comparing base (0af627a) to head (ebeae68).

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
go/vt/vtgate/semantics/table_set.go 0.00% 13 Missing ⚠️
...gate/planbuilder/operators/predicates/predicate.go 66.66% 6 Missing ⚠️
go/vt/vtgate/planbuilder/operators/join_merging.go 88.23% 2 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main   #17877   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   67.51%   67.52%           
=======================================
  Files        1595     1597    +2     
  Lines      259640   259652   +12     
=======================================
+ Hits       175292   175323   +31     
+ Misses      84348    84329   -19     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@systay systay requested review from dbussink, vmg and deepthi as code owners March 3, 2025 11:38
systay and others added 3 commits March 3, 2025 16:29
The evalengine compiler does not operate on arbitrary width types: once
a value is evaluated into the compiler stack, its type is fixed to the
widest possible for the representation (e.g. all signed values are
promoted to INT64, all unsigned values to UINT64, etc).

The BindVariable code was not taking this into account when evaluating
and pushing the value of a bind variable into the evaluation stack. A
bind variable with type INT32 was being pushed into the stack as an
INT64, but it kept its original type when statically typing the rest of
the stack, so it caused bad compilation.

Signed-off-by: Vicent Marti <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants