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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

executor: add a test for dynamic partition prune mode with equal expression #24520

Merged
merged 11 commits into from
May 11, 2021
Merged

executor: add a test for dynamic partition prune mode with equal expression #24520

merged 11 commits into from
May 11, 2021

Conversation

rebelice
Copy link
Contributor

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: related to #24150

Problem Summary:

Add a test for dynamic partition prune mode with equal expression

Related changes

Check List

Tests

  • Unit test

Side effects

Release note

  • No release note

@rebelice rebelice requested a review from a team as a code owner May 10, 2021 09:18
@rebelice rebelice requested review from wshwsh12 and removed request for a team May 10, 2021 09:18
@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added the size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. label May 10, 2021
@rebelice rebelice requested a review from qw4990 May 10, 2021 09:19
@github-actions github-actions bot added the sig/execution SIG execution label May 10, 2021
mjonss
mjonss reviewed May 10, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@mjonss mjonss left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM (not yet reached reviewer status)

util/testkit/testkit.go
func (tk *TestKit) MustPartition(sql string, partitions string, args ...interface{}) bool {
rs := tk.MustQuery("explain "+sql, args...)
for i := range rs.rows {
if strings.Compare(rs.rows[i][3], "partition:"+partitions) == 0 {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should we extend this to return which partitions (as an int set/array) will be used? So we can check that a query is only using a specific set of partitions (not more and not less). Or should we have that as a separate helper function later?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think this function can check that a query is only using a specific set of partitions (not more and not less). Although it can only handle the case of only one partition-read plan. The extension I understand maybe can support multiple partition-read plans. If necessary, I can implement this extension, but I think it shouldn’t be needed at the moment.

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label May 11, 2021
@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label May 11, 2021
@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added the status/LGT1 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 1. label May 11, 2021
time-and-fate
time-and-fate approved these changes May 11, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@time-and-fate time-and-fate left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/lgtm

@ti-chi-bot
Copy link
Member

[REVIEW NOTIFICATION]

This pull request has been approved by:

  • qw4990
  • time-and-fate

To complete the pull request process, please ask the reviewers in the list to review by filling /cc @reviewer in the comment.
After your PR has acquired the required number of LGTMs, you can assign this pull request to the committer in the list by filling /assign @committer in the comment to help you merge this pull request.

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

Reviewer can indicate their review by writing /lgtm in a comment.
Reviewer can cancel approval by writing /lgtm cancel in a comment.

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added status/LGT2 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 2. and removed status/LGT1 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 1. labels May 11, 2021
@rebelice
Copy link
Contributor Author

/merge

@ti-chi-bot
Copy link
Member

This pull request has been accepted and is ready to merge.

Commit hash: b8df2b8

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added the status/can-merge Indicates a PR has been approved by a committer. label May 11, 2021
@ti-chi-bot
Copy link
Member

@rebelice: Your PR was out of date, I have automatically updated it for you.

At the same time I will also trigger all tests for you:

/run-all-tests

If the CI test fails, you just re-trigger the test that failed and the bot will merge the PR for you after the CI passes.

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.

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot merged commit 263a47e into pingcap:master May 11, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@mjonss mjonss mjonss left review comments

@time-and-fate time-and-fate time-and-fate approved these changes

@qw4990 qw4990 qw4990 approved these changes

@wshwsh12 wshwsh12 Awaiting requested review from wshwsh12

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
component/executor sig/execution SIG execution sig/planner SIG: Planner size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. status/can-merge Indicates a PR has been approved by a committer. status/LGT2 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 2.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
5 participants
@rebelice @ti-chi-bot @mjonss @qw4990 @time-and-fate