planner: remove redundant branches in the OR list | tidb-test=pr/2470 #58962
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -186,6 +186,7 @@ func splitCNF(conditions []expression.Expression) []expression.Expression { | |
| func applyPredicateSimplification(sctx base.PlanContext, predicates []expression.Expression) []expression.Expression { | ||
| simplifiedPredicate := shortCircuitLogicalConstants(sctx, predicates) | ||
| simplifiedPredicate = mergeInAndNotEQLists(sctx, simplifiedPredicate) | ||
| removeRedundantORBranch(sctx, simplifiedPredicate) | ||
| pruneEmptyORBranches(sctx, simplifiedPredicate) | ||
| simplifiedPredicate = splitCNF(simplifiedPredicate) | ||
| return simplifiedPredicate | ||
|
|
@@ -424,6 +425,51 @@ func shortCircuitLogicalConstants(sctx base.PlanContext, predicates []expression | |
| return finalResult | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // removeRedundantORBranch recursively iterates over a list of predicates, try to find OR lists and remove redundant in | ||
| // each OR list. | ||
| // It modifies the input slice in place. | ||
| func removeRedundantORBranch(sctx base.PlanContext, predicates []expression.Expression) { | ||
| for i, predicate := range predicates { | ||
| predicates[i] = recursiveRemoveRedundantORBranch(sctx, predicate) | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func recursiveRemoveRedundantORBranch(sctx base.PlanContext, predicate expression.Expression) expression.Expression { | ||
| _, tp := FindPredicateType(sctx, predicate) | ||
| if tp != orPredicate { | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. This is a recursive function (indirectly through removeRedundantORBranch). If you intend to cover the And case (like the code in the function) then you just need a general logic for OR AND lists. There was a problem hiding this comment. I didn't intend to cover the AND case (since that's already covered by other existing logic), I want to handle OR lists nested in another AND list. |
||
| return predicate | ||
| } | ||
| orFunc := predicate.(*expression.ScalarFunction) | ||
| orList := expression.SplitDNFItems(orFunc) | ||
|
|
||
| dedupMap := make(map[string]struct{}, len(orList)) | ||
| newORList := make([]expression.Expression, 0, len(orList)) | ||
|
|
||
| for _, orItem := range orList { | ||
| _, tp := FindPredicateType(sctx, orItem) | ||
| // 1. If it's an AND predicate, we recursively call removeRedundantORBranch() on it. | ||
| if tp == andPredicate { | ||
| andFunc := orItem.(*expression.ScalarFunction) | ||
| andList := expression.SplitCNFItems(andFunc) | ||
| removeRedundantORBranch(sctx, andList) | ||
| newORList = append(newORList, expression.ComposeCNFCondition(sctx.GetExprCtx(), andList...)) | ||
| } else { | ||
| // 2. Otherwise, we check if it's a duplicate predicate by checking HashCode(). | ||
| hashCode := string(orItem.HashCode()) | ||
| // 2-1. If it's not a duplicate, we need to keep this predicate. | ||
| if _, ok := dedupMap[hashCode]; !ok { | ||
| dedupMap[hashCode] = struct{}{} | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Minor: the value of the map can be anything and may be just a simple constant like True. There was a problem hiding this comment. Technically, yes. But I think using |
||
| newORList = append(newORList, orItem) | ||
| } else if expression.IsMutableEffectsExpr(orItem) { | ||
| // 2-2. If it's a duplicate, but it's nondeterministic or has side effects, we also need to keep it. | ||
| newORList = append(newORList, orItem) | ||
| } | ||
| // 2-3. Otherwise, we remove it. | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| return expression.ComposeDNFCondition(sctx.GetExprCtx(), newORList...) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // Name implements base.LogicalOptRule.<1st> interface. | ||
| func (*PredicateSimplification) Name() string { | ||
| return "predicate_simplification" | ||
|
|
||
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Any reason of the order of the sub-rule?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There are no strong reasons. Actually, after I put this new sub-rule in a different order, the new test cases don't have any changes.
I have several minor considerations though:
mergeInAndNotEQLists()simplifies the predicates by merging some of them, i.e., constructing some new expressions. Probably there will be new redundant expressions after that sub-rule, so put the new sub-rule after it might be a good idea.pruneEmptyORBranches()just removes useless OR branches, and should not produce new redundant expressions. So probably it's useless to put the new sub-rule after it.