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

Optimize query plans for incremental join evaluation #553

Closed
joshua-spacetime opened this issue Nov 10, 2023 · 0 comments · Fixed by #557
Closed

Optimize query plans for incremental join evaluation #553

joshua-spacetime opened this issue Nov 10, 2023 · 0 comments · Fixed by #557
Assignees
@joshua-spacetime

Comments

@joshua-spacetime
Copy link
Collaborator

We generate index nested loop join plans for applicable semijoin queries, however these same plans are not optimal when performing incremental evaluation. We need to make sure that we generate optimal plans for both full and incremental evaluation.
@joshua-spacetime joshua-spacetime self-assigned this Nov 10, 2023
joshua-spacetime added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 14, 2023
@joshua-spacetime
perf(553): Optimize incremental join evaluation
34bce4d 
Fixes #553.
@joshua-spacetime joshua-spacetime mentioned this issue Nov 14, 2023
Merged
joshua-spacetime added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 14, 2023
@joshua-spacetime
perf(553): Optimize index joins for incremental evaluation
2e3f521 
Fixes #553.
joshua-spacetime added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 15, 2023
@joshua-spacetime
perf(553): Optimize index joins for incremental evaluation
65a5588 
Fixes #553.

Before this change, we would use the same plan for both query and incremental eval.
This is problematic for index joins.
In particular, table sizes are drastically different under incremental eval.
After this change, joins are reordered for incremental eval.
joshua-spacetime added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 15, 2023
@joshua-spacetime
perf(553): Optimize index joins for incremental evaluation
9b79cdd 
Fixes #553.

This rolls up PR #557 so that it can be easily deployed to the v0.7.4 release branch.
jdetter pushed a commit that referenced this issue Nov 15, 2023
@joshua-spacetime
perf(553): Optimize index joins for incremental evaluation
9a40c94 
Fixes #553.

Before this change, we would use the same plan for both query and incremental eval.
This is problematic for index joins.
In particular, table sizes are drastically different under incremental eval.
After this change, joins are reordered for incremental eval.
joshua-spacetime added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 15, 2023
@joshua-spacetime
perf(553): Optimize index joins for incremental evaluation
1b3b402 
Fixes #553.

Before this change, we would use the same plan for both query and incremental eval.
This is problematic for index joins.
In particular, table sizes are drastically different under incremental eval.
After this change, joins are reordered for incremental eval.
joshua-spacetime added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 15, 2023
@joshua-spacetime
perf(553): Optimize index joins for incremental evaluation
13b9bc7 
Fixes #553.

Before this change, we would use the same plan for both query and incremental eval.
This is problematic for index joins.
In particular, table sizes are drastically different under incremental eval.
After this change, joins are reordered for incremental eval.
jdetter pushed a commit that referenced this issue Nov 15, 2023
@joshua-spacetime
perf(553): Optimize index joins for incremental evaluation
36799af 
Fixes #553.

Before this change, we would use the same plan for both query and incremental eval.
This is problematic for index joins.
In particular, table sizes are drastically different under incremental eval.
After this change, joins are reordered for incremental eval.
joshua-spacetime added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 15, 2023
@joshua-spacetime
perf(553): Optimize index joins for incremental evaluation
5a23fad 
Fixes #553.

Before this change, we would use the same plan for both query and incremental eval.
This is problematic for index joins.
In particular, table sizes are drastically different under incremental eval.
After this change, joins are reordered for incremental eval.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@joshua-spacetime joshua-spacetime

Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

perf(553): Optimize incremental join evaluation clockworklabs/SpacetimeDB
1 participant
@joshua-spacetime