Skip to content

planner: fix hash partition prune with is null condition - #58383

Merged
ti-chi-bot[bot] merged 3 commits into
pingcap:masterfrom
Defined2014:fix-58374
Dec 19, 2024
Merged

ti-chi-bot[bot] merged 3 commits into
pingcap:masterfrom
Defined2014:fix-58374

Conversation

@Defined2014

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: close #58374

Problem Summary: Let codes in getUsedHashPartitions same as getUsedKeyPartitions.

What changed and how does it work?

Check List

Tests

  • Unit test
  • Integration test
  • Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
  • No need to test
    • I checked and no code files have been changed.

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 ti-chi-bot Bot added release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. sig/planner SIG: Planner size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Dec 18, 2024
@tiprow

tiprow Bot commented Dec 18, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Hi @Defined2014. Thanks for your PR.

PRs from untrusted users cannot be marked as trusted with /ok-to-test in this repo meaning untrusted PR authors can never trigger tests themselves. Collaborators can still trigger tests on the PR using /test all.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Details

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-sigs/prow repository.

@codecov

codecov Bot commented Dec 18, 2024 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 74.9382%. Comparing base (1405c5e) to head (ecee0b7).
Report is 308 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@               Coverage Diff                @@
##             master     #58383        +/-   ##
================================================
+ Coverage   73.1849%   74.9382%   +1.7532%     
================================================
  Files          1681       1726        +45     
  Lines        463027     472891      +9864     
================================================
+ Hits         338866     354376     +15510     
+ Misses       103358      96282      -7076     
- Partials      20803      22233      +1430     
Flag Coverage Δ
integration 49.0094% <100.0000%> (?)
unit 72.2957% <100.0000%> (-0.0211%) ⬇️

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

Components Coverage Δ
dumpling 52.6910% <ø> (ø)
parser ∅ <ø> (∅)
br 61.3893% <ø> (+15.3873%) ⬆️

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot Bot added approved needs-1-more-lgtm Indicates a PR needs 1 more LGTM. labels Dec 19, 2024
@Defined2014

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

/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 Dec 19, 2024
@Defined2014

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

/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 Dec 19, 2024

@mjonss mjonss left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If we de-duplicate the partition columns from the expression, we can improve the PR.

Comment thread pkg/planner/core/rule_partition_processor.go Outdated

@mjonss mjonss left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM after de-duplication.

@ti-chi-bot

ti-chi-bot Bot commented Dec 19, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: mjonss, qw4990

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

The pull request process is described here

Details Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

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 ti-chi-bot Bot added lgtm and removed needs-1-more-lgtm Indicates a PR needs 1 more LGTM. labels Dec 19, 2024
@ti-chi-bot

ti-chi-bot Bot commented Dec 19, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown

[LGTM Timeline notifier]

Timeline:

  • 2024-12-19 07:33:31.66267367 +0000 UTC m=+1115001.751476209: ☑️ agreed by qw4990.
  • 2024-12-19 09:28:31.871680972 +0000 UTC m=+1121901.960483499: ☑️ agreed by mjonss.

@Defined2014

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

/retest

@tiprow

tiprow Bot commented Dec 19, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@Defined2014: Cannot trigger testing until a trusted user reviews the PR and leaves an /ok-to-test message.

Details

In response to this:

/retest

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-sigs/prow repository.

@Defined2014

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

/retest

@tiprow

tiprow Bot commented Dec 19, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@Defined2014: Cannot trigger testing until a trusted user reviews the PR and leaves an /ok-to-test message.

Details

In response to this:

/retest

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-sigs/prow repository.

@ti-chi-bot
ti-chi-bot Bot merged commit 15d25e0 into pingcap:master Dec 19, 2024
@Defined2014 Defined2014 added needs-cherry-pick-release-7.1 Should cherry pick this PR to release-7.1 branch. needs-cherry-pick-release-7.5 Should cherry pick this PR to release-7.5 branch. needs-cherry-pick-release-8.1 Should cherry pick this PR to release-8.1 branch. needs-cherry-pick-release-8.5 Should cherry pick this PR to release-8.5 branch. labels Feb 11, 2025
ti-chi-bot pushed a commit to ti-chi-bot/tidb that referenced this pull request Feb 11, 2025
Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <ti-community-prow-bot@tidb.io>
@ti-chi-bot

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch release-7.1: #59384.
But this PR has conflicts, please resolve them!

ti-chi-bot pushed a commit to ti-chi-bot/tidb that referenced this pull request Feb 11, 2025
Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <ti-community-prow-bot@tidb.io>
@ti-chi-bot

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch release-7.5: #59385.
But this PR has conflicts, please resolve them!

@ti-chi-bot

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch release-8.5: #59386.

@ti-chi-bot

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch release-8.1: #59387.

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-7.1 Should cherry pick this PR to release-7.1 branch. needs-cherry-pick-release-7.5 Should cherry pick this PR to release-7.5 branch. needs-cherry-pick-release-8.1 Should cherry pick this PR to release-8.1 branch. needs-cherry-pick-release-8.5 Should cherry pick this PR to release-8.5 branch. release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. sig/planner SIG: Planner 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.

Query hash partition caused panic

4 participants