-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.7k
[Enhancement] Improve the performance of query with IN predicate #3694
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
Conversation
4c05408 to
a915c56
Compare
yangzhg
left a comment
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.
LGTM
| if (pred->get_child(0)->get_slot_ids(&slot_ids) != 1) { | ||
| // not a single column predicate | ||
| continue; | ||
| } |
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.
754 line can guarantee it's a single coulumn predicate?
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.
I am not sure about that, looks like line 754 can guarantee.
But just leave this judgement, because no matter what, we still have to call get_slot_ids() to get the slot id and check if it equals to the slot->id() later.
be/src/exec/olap_scan_node.cpp
Outdated
| switch (slot->type().type) { | ||
| case TYPE_TINYINT: { | ||
| int32_t v = *reinterpret_cast<int8_t*>(value); | ||
| range->clear(); |
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.
Whether ”range->clear()“ can be preceded by the switch statement
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.
OK
|
Hi, @morningman I have some question about olap_scan_node, could you plz help me figure it out?
|
For example, First, for
@chaoyli may understand this better. If I said something wrong, he can help correct it. |
Thanks for your reply, so if the |
Not exactly, |
EmmyMiao87
left a comment
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.
LGTM
f326a40 to
6466650
Compare
…che#3694) This CL mainly changes: 1. Add a new BE config `max_pushdown_conditions_per_column` to limit the number of conditions of a single column that can be pushed down to storage engine. 2. Add 2 new session variables `max_scan_key_num` and `doris_max_scan_key_num` which can set in session level and overwrite the config value in BE.
Fix: #3693
This CL mainly changes:
Add a new BE config
max_pushdown_conditions_per_columnto limit the number of conditions of a single column that can be pushed down to storage engine.Add 2 new session variables
max_scan_key_numanddoris_max_scan_key_numwhich can set in session level and overwrite the config value in BE.