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.

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

bugfix: don't treat join predicates as filter predicates #16472

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jul 25, 2024

Conversation

systay
Copy link
Collaborator

@systay systay commented Jul 25, 2024

Description

Fixes an issue where we were treating join predicates as WHERE predicates by mistake.

Related Issue(s)

Fixes #16471

Checklist

  • "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported to release branches
  • If this change is to be back-ported to previous releases, a justification is included in the PR description
  • Tests were added or are not required
  • Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on CI?
  • Documentation was added or is not required

@systay systay added Type: Bug Component: Query Serving Backport to: release-18.0 Needs to be back ported to release-18.0 Backport to: release-19.0 Needs to be back ported to release-19.0 Backport to: release-20.0 Needs to be backport to release-20.0 labels Jul 25, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

vitess-bot bot commented Jul 25, 2024

Review Checklist

Hello reviewers! 👋 Please follow this checklist when reviewing this Pull Request.

General

  • Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
  • Ensure there is a link to an issue (except for internal cleanup and flaky test fixes), new features should have an RFC that documents use cases and test cases.

Tests

  • Bug fixes should have at least one unit or end-to-end test, enhancement and new features should have a sufficient number of tests.

Documentation

  • Apply the release notes (needs details) label if users need to know about this change.
  • New features should be documented.
  • There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.
  • There should be a comment at the top of each new or modified test to explain what the test does.

New flags

  • Is this flag really necessary?
  • Flag names must be clear and intuitive, use dashes (-), and have a clear help text.

If a workflow is added or modified:

  • Each item in Jobs should be named in order to mark it as required.
  • If the workflow needs to be marked as required, the maintainer team must be notified.

Backward compatibility

  • Protobuf changes should be wire-compatible.
  • Changes to _vt tables and RPCs need to be backward compatible.
  • RPC changes should be compatible with vitess-operator
  • If a flag is removed, then it should also be removed from vitess-operator and arewefastyet, if used there.
  • vtctl command output order should be stable and awk-able.

@vitess-bot vitess-bot bot added NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says labels Jul 25, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v21.0.0 milestone Jul 25, 2024
@systay systay removed NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required labels Jul 25, 2024
Signed-off-by: Andres Taylor <[email protected]>
@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach mentioned this pull request Jul 25, 2024
28 tasks
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 25, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 75.00000% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 68.63%. Comparing base (f481a77) to head (d2a3896).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files Patch % Lines
go/vt/vtgate/planbuilder/operators/apply_join.go 0.00% 2 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #16472      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   68.65%   68.63%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files        1551     1551              
  Lines      199468   199471       +3     
==========================================
- Hits       136935   136904      -31     
- Misses      62533    62567      +34     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@harshit-gangal harshit-gangal merged commit 59408f9 into vitessio:main Jul 25, 2024
129 checks passed
@harshit-gangal harshit-gangal deleted the left-outer-condition branch July 25, 2024 10:49
vitess-bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 25, 2024
systay added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 29, 2024
…es (#16472) (#16475)

Signed-off-by: Andres Taylor <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Florent Poinsard <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: vitess-bot[bot] <108069721+vitess-bot[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Florent Poinsard <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Andres Taylor <[email protected]>
systay added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 30, 2024
systay added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 31, 2024
venkatraju pushed a commit to slackhq/vitess that referenced this pull request Aug 29, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Backport to: release-18.0 Needs to be back ported to release-18.0 Backport to: release-19.0 Needs to be back ported to release-19.0 Backport to: release-20.0 Needs to be backport to release-20.0 Component: Query Serving Type: Bug
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

BUG: Outer join conditions for sharded queries
3 participants