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 dual merging in outer join queries #15959

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Jun 13, 2024

Conversation

GuptaManan100
Copy link
Member

Description

This PR resolves the issue described in #15958.

The problem was that we were merging the dual query with the sharded route, and each of the shards ended up returning one row. We should not be merging dual queries into sharded routes. We can only merge them if the other side is a single shard routing.

Related Issue(s)

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

Deployment Notes

Signed-off-by: Manan Gupta <[email protected]>
Copy link
Contributor

vitess-bot bot commented May 16, 2024

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 May 16, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v20.0.0 milestone May 16, 2024
@GuptaManan100 GuptaManan100 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 May 16, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented May 16, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 68.24%. Comparing base (f118ba2) to head (84c968f).
Report is 167 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #15959      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   68.40%   68.24%   -0.17%     
==========================================
  Files        1556     1543      -13     
  Lines      195121   197592    +2471     
==========================================
+ Hits       133479   134845    +1366     
- Misses      61642    62747    +1105     

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

systay
systay previously approved these changes May 16, 2024
@harshit-gangal
Copy link
Member

Is this not a problem only with left join and that too when the dual table is on the left hand side of the join.

@harshit-gangal
Copy link
Member

Is this not a problem only with left join and that too when the dual table is on the left hand side of the join.

I see the code follows this rule, it was missing in the PR description.

Copy link
Member Author

@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.

@harshit-gangal @systay Had to change quite a few things to get everything to work. Could I request you two to review it again?

go/vt/vtgate/planbuilder/operators/query_planning.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
go/vt/vtgate/planbuilder/operators/route_planning.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
go/vt/vtgate/planbuilder/operators/joins.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@GuptaManan100 GuptaManan100 dismissed systay’s stale review May 17, 2024 10:17

A lot of code has changed since the approval.

@GuptaManan100 GuptaManan100 marked this pull request as draft May 31, 2024 08:15
@GuptaManan100 GuptaManan100 marked this pull request as ready for review June 12, 2024 09:44
@harshit-gangal harshit-gangal merged commit fb9446b into vitessio:main Jun 13, 2024
94 checks passed
@harshit-gangal harshit-gangal deleted the fix-dual-merging branch June 13, 2024 08:51
@GrahamCampbell
Copy link
Contributor

I think the milestone on this issue is possibly incorrect. This was merged to v21, but the milestone says v20.

@GuptaManan100 GuptaManan100 modified the milestones: v20.0.0, v21.0.0 Jun 13, 2024
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.

Bug Report: Dual left join query returns more results than it should
4 participants