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

IT unstable case TestPreparePlanCacheNotForCacheTable #30333

Closed
aytrack opened this issue Dec 2, 2021 · 5 comments
Closed

IT unstable case TestPreparePlanCacheNotForCacheTable #30333

aytrack opened this issue Dec 2, 2021 · 5 comments
Assignees
Labels
component/test feature/developing the related feature is in development severity/major sig/planner SIG: Planner

Comments

@aytrack
Copy link
Contributor

aytrack commented Dec 2, 2021

Bug Report

Please answer these questions before submitting your issue. Thanks!

1. Minimal reproduce step (Required)

in ci https://ci.pingcap.net/blue/organizations/jenkins/tidb_ghpr_coverage/detail/tidb_ghpr_coverage/1422/pipeline

2021-12-01T09:44:33.665Z] FAIL: integration_test.go:6217: testIntegrationSerialSuite.TestPreparePlanCacheNotForCacheTable
[2021-12-01T09:44:33.665Z] 
[2021-12-01T09:44:33.665Z] integration_test.go:6235:
[2021-12-01T09:44:33.665Z]     // already read cache after reading first time
[2021-12-01T09:44:33.665Z]     tk.MustQuery("explain format = 'brief' select * from t where a = 1").Check(testkit.Rows(
[2021-12-01T09:44:33.666Z]         "Projection 10.00 root  test.t.a",
[2021-12-01T09:44:33.666Z]         "└─UnionScan 10.00 root  eq(test.t.a, 1)",
[2021-12-01T09:44:33.666Z]         "  └─TableReader 10.00 root  data:Selection",
[2021-12-01T09:44:33.666Z]         "    └─Selection 10.00 cop[tikv]  eq(test.t.a, 1)",
[2021-12-01T09:44:33.666Z]         "      └─TableFullScan 10000.00 cop[tikv] table:t keep order:false, stats:pseudo"))
[2021-12-01T09:44:33.666Z] /home/jenkins/agent/workspace/tidb_ghpr_coverage/go/src/github.com/pingcap/tidb/util/testkit/testkit.go:67:
[2021-12-01T09:44:33.666Z]     res.c.Assert(resBuff.String(), check.Equals, needBuff.String(), res.comment)
[2021-12-01T09:44:33.666Z] ... obtained string = "" +
[2021-12-01T09:44:33.666Z] ...     "[TableReader 10.00 root  data:Selection]\n" +
[2021-12-01T09:44:33.666Z] ...     "[└─Selection 10.00 cop[tikv]  eq(test.t.a, 1)]\n" +
[2021-12-01T09:44:33.666Z] ...     "[  └─TableFullScan 10000.00 cop[tikv] table:t keep order:false, stats:pseudo]\n"
[2021-12-01T09:44:33.666Z] ... expected string = "" +
[2021-12-01T09:44:33.666Z] ...     "[Projection 10.00 root  test.t.a]\n" +
[2021-12-01T09:44:33.666Z] ...     "[└─UnionScan 10.00 root  eq(test.t.a, 1)]\n" +
[2021-12-01T09:44:33.666Z] ...     "[  └─TableReader 10.00 root  data:Selection]\n" +
[2021-12-01T09:44:33.666Z] ...     "[    └─Selection 10.00 cop[tikv]  eq(test.t.a, 1)]\n" +
[2021-12-01T09:44:33.666Z] ...     "[      └─TableFullScan 10000.00 cop[tikv] table:t keep order:false, stats:pseudo]\n"
[2021-12-01T09:44:33.666Z] ... sql:explain format = 'brief' select * from t where a = 1, args:[]
[2021-12-01T09:44:33.666Z] 

2. What did you expect to see? (Required)

3. What did you see instead (Required)

4. What is your TiDB version? (Required)

@aytrack aytrack added type/bug The issue is confirmed as a bug. sig/planner SIG: Planner component/test severity/major labels Dec 2, 2021
@Reminiscent
Copy link
Contributor

Reminiscent commented Dec 2, 2021

@sylzd @tiancaiamao PTAL

@tiancaiamao tiancaiamao self-assigned this Dec 2, 2021
@yudongusa
Copy link

@Reminiscent @tiancaiamao Was the root cause identified?

@tiancaiamao tiancaiamao added the feature/developing the related feature is in development label Dec 14, 2021
@tiancaiamao
Copy link
Contributor

I'm not sure, it's still a developing feature, after #30206 I will take a look.
Maybe it will disappear by itself...

If this fails a lot in our CI I'll give it a higher priority.

@yudongusa

@yudongusa yudongusa removed the type/bug The issue is confirmed as a bug. label Dec 14, 2021
@yudongusa
Copy link

I'm not sure, it's still a developing feature, after #30206 I will take a look. Maybe it will disappear by itself...

If this fails a lot in our CI I'll give it a higher priority.

@yudongusa

Ok, we can check back with the new feature. I removed bug label first as discussed with QA team since it will be handled by features.

@tiancaiamao
Copy link
Contributor

Close, this is an issue during developing, it never reproduce recently.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
component/test feature/developing the related feature is in development severity/major sig/planner SIG: Planner
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants