Skip to content

Conversation

hawkingrei
Copy link
Member

@hawkingrei hawkingrei commented Mar 13, 2025

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: close #59902

Problem Summary:

What changed and how does it work?

in the constructIndexJoinInnerSideTaskWithAggCheck, we forget to transfer the parents stats by the child stats.

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.

fix wrong HashAgg estrows for inner operator of index join

修复 index join 的 inner operator 中 HashAgg 估算行数错误的问题

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot added release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. do-not-merge/needs-triage-completed do-not-merge/needs-tests-checked sig/planner SIG: Planner size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Mar 13, 2025
@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot added size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. do-not-merge/needs-triage-completed do-not-merge/needs-tests-checked labels Mar 20, 2025
@hawkingrei hawkingrei changed the title planner: fix wrong estrows for inner operator of index join planner: fix wrong HashAgg estrows for inner operator of index join Mar 20, 2025
@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot added release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. and removed release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. labels Mar 20, 2025
@hawkingrei
Copy link
Member Author

/retest

Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 20, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 73.6540%. Comparing base (d51e00e) to head (5c7b092).
Report is 4 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@               Coverage Diff                @@
##             master     #60071        +/-   ##
================================================
+ Coverage   73.1879%   73.6540%   +0.4661%     
================================================
  Files          1708       1708                
  Lines        471910     472596       +686     
================================================
+ Hits         345381     348086      +2705     
+ Misses       105318     103328      -1990     
+ Partials      21211      21182        -29     
Flag Coverage Δ
integration 42.7884% <100.0000%> (?)
unit 72.4433% <100.0000%> (+0.0565%) ⬆️

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 47.2482% <ø> (+0.0406%) ⬆️
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@elsa0520
Copy link
Contributor

The stream agg also should be changed together

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot added size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Mar 21, 2025
@hawkingrei
Copy link
Member Author

The stream agg also should be changed together

I have updated it.

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot added size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Mar 24, 2025
@hawkingrei
Copy link
Member Author

/retest

@hawkingrei hawkingrei requested a review from elsa0520 March 24, 2025 11:36
@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot added needs-1-more-lgtm Indicates a PR needs 1 more LGTM. approved labels Mar 25, 2025
Copy link

ti-chi-bot bot commented Mar 25, 2025

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

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

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:

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 Mar 25, 2025
Copy link

ti-chi-bot bot commented Mar 25, 2025

[LGTM Timeline notifier]

Timeline:

  • 2025-03-25 09:21:09.041084411 +0000 UTC m=+952162.725320507: ☑️ agreed by AilinKid.
  • 2025-03-25 12:35:25.625027029 +0000 UTC m=+963819.309263125: ☑️ agreed by qw4990.

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot merged commit 991551e into pingcap:master Mar 25, 2025
24 checks passed
@hawkingrei
Copy link
Member Author

/cherrypick release-8.5

ti-chi-bot pushed a commit to ti-chi-bot/tidb that referenced this pull request Mar 31, 2025
@ti-chi-bot
Copy link
Member

@hawkingrei: new pull request created to branch release-8.5: #60336.
But this PR has conflicts, please resolve them!

In response to this:

/cherrypick release-8.5

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 ti-community-infra/tichi repository.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved lgtm release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. 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.

The estrows is wrong for inner operator of index join
5 participants