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

Query: Optimize usage of GetViewOrTableMappings #28019

Merged
1 commit merged into from
May 13, 2022
Merged

Query: Optimize usage of GetViewOrTableMappings #28019

1 commit merged into from
May 13, 2022

Conversation

smitpatel
Copy link
Member

Resolves #23572

Following rules define if given entity type is a potential candidate for optional dependent in table sharing case

  • A keyless entity cannot be in table sharing
  • Only root type of hierarchy can be dependent
  • The dependent can be TPH/TPT (or no hierarchy) but no TPC
  • Principal can be any type except non-leaf type in TPC (this is only applied in model validation, no impact on query)

If above conditions indicate it is optional dependent then we need to find the ITableBase it is mapped to find if it is optional dependent
We find ITableBase for IEntityType (which is also root type)

  • For new generated SelectExpression, first table's ITableBase is the mapping table (regardless of type of TableExpressionBase, if no mapping then we use default)
  • For other scenario the single mapped view/table mapping for the entity type (because of root type, there will only be one mapping) or default mapping in case entity type is not mapped to any view/table

Once we get table and verify it is optional dependent,
We use required non-PK columns which are not shared with principal entity types to add check for existence. This is necessary and sufficient condition for existence

Copy link
Member

@AndriySvyryd AndriySvyryd left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

🐑 🇮🇹

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented May 13, 2022

Hello @smitpatel!

Because this pull request has the auto-merge label, I will be glad to assist with helping to merge this pull request once all check-in policies pass.

p.s. you can customize the way I help with merging this pull request, such as holding this pull request until a specific person approves. Simply @mention me (@msftbot) and give me an instruction to get started! Learn more here.

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented May 13, 2022

Apologies, while this PR appears ready to be merged, I've been configured to only merge when all checks have explicitly passed. The following integrations have not reported any progress on their checks and are blocking auto-merge:

  1. Azure Pipelines

These integrations are possibly never going to report a check, and unblocking auto-merge likely requires a human being to update my configuration to exempt these integrations from requiring a passing check.

Give feedback on this
From the bot dev team

We've tried to tune the bot such that it posts a comment like this only when auto-merge is blocked for exceptional, non-intuitive reasons. When the bot's auto-merge capability is properly configured, auto-merge should operate as you would intuitively expect and you should not see any spurious comments.

Please reach out to us at fabricbotservices@microsoft.com to provide feedback if you believe you're seeing this comment appear spuriously. Please note that we usually are unable to update your bot configuration on your team's behalf, but we're happy to help you identify your bot admin.

Resolves #23572

Following rules define if given entity type is a potential candidate for optional dependent in table sharing case
- A keyless entity cannot be in table sharing
- Only root type of hierarchy can be dependent
- The dependent can be TPH/TPT (or no hierarchy) but no TPC
- Principal can be any type except non-leaf type in TPC (this is only applied in model validation, no impact on query)

If above conditions indicate it is optional dependent then we need to find the ITableBase it is mapped to find if it is optional dependent
We find ITableBase for IEntityType (which is also root type)
- For new generated SelectExpression, first table's ITableBase is the mapping table (regardless of type of TableExpressionBase, if no mapping then we use default)
- For other scenario the single mapped view/table mapping for the entity type (because of root type, there will only be one mapping) or default mapping in case entity type is not mapped to any view/table

Once we get table and verify it is optional dependent,
We use required non-PK columns which are not shared with principal entity types to add check for existence. This is necessary and sufficient condition for existence
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented May 13, 2022

Apologies, while this PR appears ready to be merged, I've been configured to only merge when all checks have explicitly passed. The following integrations have not reported any progress on their checks and are blocking auto-merge:

  1. Azure Pipelines

These integrations are possibly never going to report a check, and unblocking auto-merge likely requires a human being to update my configuration to exempt these integrations from requiring a passing check.

Give feedback on this
From the bot dev team

We've tried to tune the bot such that it posts a comment like this only when auto-merge is blocked for exceptional, non-intuitive reasons. When the bot's auto-merge capability is properly configured, auto-merge should operate as you would intuitively expect and you should not see any spurious comments.

Please reach out to us at fabricbotservices@microsoft.com to provide feedback if you believe you're seeing this comment appear spuriously. Please note that we usually are unable to update your bot configuration on your team's behalf, but we're happy to help you identify your bot admin.

@ghost ghost merged commit 1d47398 into main May 13, 2022
@ghost ghost deleted the smit/GetViews branch May 13, 2022 05:17
This pull request was closed.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Query: Optimize usage of GetViewOrTableMappings
2 participants