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

planner: update some UTs from cost model1 to model2 #39013

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Nov 9, 2022
Merged

planner: update some UTs from cost model1 to model2 #39013

merged 8 commits into from
Nov 9, 2022

Conversation

qw4990
Copy link
Contributor

@qw4990 qw4990 commented Nov 9, 2022

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: ref #35240

Problem Summary: planner: update some UTs from cost model1 to model2

What is changed and how it works?

planner: update some UTs from cost model1 to model2

Check List

Tests

  • Unit test
  • Integration test
  • Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
  • No code

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

@ti-chi-bot
Copy link
Member

ti-chi-bot commented Nov 9, 2022 •
edited
Loading

[REVIEW NOTIFICATION]

This pull request has been approved by:

  • Reminiscent
  • fzzf678

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 submitting an approval review.
Reviewer can cancel approval by submitting a request changes review.

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Nov 9, 2022
@qw4990 qw4990 added sig/planner SIG: Planner epic/cost-model the optimizer cost model and removed size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Nov 9, 2022
qw4990
qw4990 commented Nov 9, 2022
View reviewed changes
planner/core/integration_test.go
@@ -7110,26 +7114,26 @@ func TestAggWithJsonPushDownToTiFlash(t *testing.T) {
}

rows := [][]interface{}{
{"HashAgg_6", "root", "funcs:avg(Column#4)->Column#3"},
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Expected, no plan change, just update Operator ID.

qw4990
qw4990 commented Nov 9, 2022
View reviewed changes
planner/core/testdata/analyze_suite_out.json
@@ -384,12 +384,12 @@
" │ └─TableFullScan 10.00 cop[tikv] table:t keep order:false",
" └─StreamAgg(Probe) 10.00 root funcs:count(1)->Column#21",
" └─HashJoin 10.00 root inner join, equal:[eq(test.t.a, test.t.a)]",
" ├─TableReader(Build) 10.00 root data:Selection",
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Expected, IndexScan is always better than TableScan.

qw4990
qw4990 commented Nov 9, 2022
View reviewed changes
planner/core/testdata/integration_suite_out.json
@@ -1964,21 +1964,20 @@
{
"SQL": "select * from t where a > 1 order by f",
"Plan": [
"IndexLookUp_14 3333.33 136747.00 root ",
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Expected, model2 prefers to use single-read Scan instead of double-read Lookup if not much data to access.

qw4990
qw4990 commented Nov 9, 2022
View reviewed changes
planner/core/testdata/integration_suite_out.json
"StreamAgg 1.00 root funcs:avg(Column#7, Column#8)->Column#4",
"└─IndexReader 1.00 root index:StreamAgg",
" └─StreamAgg 1.00 cop[tikv] funcs:count(test.t.a)->Column#7, funcs:sum(test.t.a)->Column#8",
"HashAgg 1.00 root funcs:avg(Column#5, Column#6)->Column#4",
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Expected, HashAgg is better since there are lots of rows(10000) to process.

qw4990
qw4990 commented Nov 9, 2022
View reviewed changes
planner/core/testdata/plan_suite_out.json
@@ -963,31 +963,31 @@
},
{
"SQL": "select sum(e), avg(e + c) from t where c = 1 group by e",
"Best": "IndexReader(Index(t.c_d_e)[[1,1]]->HashAgg)->HashAgg"
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Whether to push Agg down to TikV when small data size is a little unstable.
It will be resolved by #38874.

qw4990
qw4990 commented Nov 9, 2022
View reviewed changes
planner/core/testdata/window_push_down_suite_out.json
" └─ExchangeReceiver_18 10000.00 mpp[tiflash] ",
" └─ExchangeSender_17 10000.00 mpp[tiflash] ExchangeType: HashPartition, Hash Cols: [name: test.employee.deptid, collate: binary]",
" └─TableFullScan_16 10000.00 mpp[tiflash] table:employee keep order:false, stats:pseudo"
" └─Projection_21 8000.00 mpp[tiflash] Column#5",
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Expected, 2PhaseAgg is better.

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added the status/LGT1 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 1. label Nov 9, 2022
@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added the size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files. label Nov 9, 2022
@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 Nov 9, 2022
@qw4990
Copy link
Contributor Author

qw4990 commented Nov 9, 2022

/merge

@ti-chi-bot
Copy link
Member

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

Commit hash: b4eab94

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added the status/can-merge Indicates a PR has been approved by a committer. label Nov 9, 2022
@qw4990
Copy link
Contributor Author

qw4990 commented Nov 9, 2022

/run-mysql-test

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot removed the status/can-merge Indicates a PR has been approved by a committer. label Nov 9, 2022
@qw4990
Copy link
Contributor Author

qw4990 commented Nov 9, 2022

/merge

@ti-chi-bot
Copy link
Member

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

Commit hash: 1fc6491

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added the status/can-merge Indicates a PR has been approved by a committer. label Nov 9, 2022
@qw4990
Copy link
Contributor Author

qw4990 commented Nov 9, 2022

/run-check_dev_2

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot merged commit 6399e6c into pingcap:master Nov 9, 2022
@sre-bot
Copy link
Contributor

sre-bot commented Nov 9, 2022

TiDB MergeCI notify

🔴 Bad News! [3] CI still failing after this pr merged.
These failed integration tests don't seem to be introduced by the current PR.

CI Name Result Duration Compare with Parent commit
idc-jenkins-ci-tidb/integration-ddl-test 🔴 failed 1, success 5, total 6 43 min Existing failure
idc-jenkins-ci/integration-cdc-test 🔴 failed 1, success 38, total 39 22 min Existing failure
idc-jenkins-ci-tidb/mybatis-test 🔴 failed 1, success 0, total 1 11 min Existing failure
idc-jenkins-ci-tidb/integration-common-test 🟢 all 17 tests passed 11 min Existing passed
idc-jenkins-ci-tidb/common-test 🟢 all 11 tests passed 9 min 29 sec Existing passed
idc-jenkins-ci-tidb/tics-test 🟢 all 1 tests passed 7 min 39 sec Existing passed
idc-jenkins-ci-tidb/sqllogic-test-2 🟢 all 28 tests passed 4 min 48 sec Existing passed
idc-jenkins-ci-tidb/sqllogic-test-1 🟢 all 26 tests passed 4 min 37 sec Existing passed
idc-jenkins-ci-tidb/integration-compatibility-test 🟢 all 1 tests passed 3 min 18 sec Existing passed
idc-jenkins-ci-tidb/plugin-test 🟢 build success, plugin test success 4min Existing passed

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@fzzf678 fzzf678 fzzf678 approved these changes

@Reminiscent Reminiscent Reminiscent approved these changes

@time-and-fate time-and-fate Awaiting requested review from time-and-fate

@Yisaer Yisaer Awaiting requested review from Yisaer

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
epic/cost-model the optimizer cost model release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. sig/planner SIG: Planner size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 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
@qw4990 @ti-chi-bot @sre-bot @Reminiscent @fzzf678