planner: fix cost adjustment for high risk tablescan

[terry1purcell]

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: close #57085

Problem Summary:

What changed and how does it work?

Code to provide a minimum cost to table scan - should use "max" rather than "min" to ensure that the minimum is actually applied. Current code will produce a lower cost for tablescans greater than 1000 rows that fit the other criteria for requiring a minimum cost to table scans.

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

[tiprow]

Hi @terry1purcell. 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.

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.

[terry1purcell]

/retest

[tiprow]

@terry1purcell: Cannot trigger testing until a trusted user reviews the PR and leaves an /ok-to-test message.

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.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 57.2108%. Comparing base (241c102) to head (17dd7fa).
Report is 376 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@                Coverage Diff                @@
##             master     #57086         +/-   ##
=================================================
- Coverage   73.2075%   57.2108%   -15.9967%     
=================================================
  Files          1652       1784        +132     
  Lines        456143     648279     +192136     
=================================================
+ Hits         333931     370886      +36955     
- Misses       101688     253261     +151573     
- Partials      20524      24132       +3608     

Flag	Coverage Δ
integration	37.9784% <100.0000%> (?)
unit	73.1981% <100.0000%> (+0.7141%)	⬆️

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

Components	Coverage Δ
dumpling	52.9478% <ø> (ø)
parser	∅ <ø> (∅)
br	52.5719% <ø> (+6.5840%)	⬆️

[hawkingrei]

/ok-to-test

[0xPoe]

Thanks!

[0xPoe]

Looks good to me. Thanks! 👍

[ti-chi-bot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: qw4990, Rustin170506

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

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [Rustin170506,qw4990]
• pkg/planner/OWNERS [Rustin170506,qw4990]

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]

[LGTM Timeline notifier]

Timeline:

• 2024-11-05 10:45:00.096722615 +0000 UTC m=+951412.935878153: ☑️ agreed by Rustin170506.
• 2024-11-06 03:48:41.66664196 +0000 UTC m=+1012834.505797502: ☑️ agreed by qw4990.

[ti-chi-bot]

In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch release-8.5: #57190.