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

planner: check required order property for enforced stream aggregation #17338

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
May 21, 2020

Conversation

eurekaka
Copy link
Contributor

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: close #17325

Problem Summary:

Wrong result for enforced stream aggregation when order is required.

What is changed and how it works?

What's Changed:

Check if the enforced stream aggregation can satisfy the required order property.

Related changes

  • Need to cherry-pick to the release branch

Check List

Tests

  • Unit test

Side effects

N/A

Release note

  • Fix wrong result order for enforced stream aggregation.

@eurekaka eurekaka added type/bugfix This PR fixes a bug. sig/planner SIG: Planner needs-cherry-pick-4.0 labels May 21, 2020
@eurekaka eurekaka requested a review from a team as a code owner May 21, 2020 09:15
@ghost ghost requested review from winoros and removed request for a team May 21, 2020 09:15
@eurekaka
Copy link
Contributor Author

/run-all-tests

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented May 21, 2020

Codecov Report

Merging #17338 into master will decrease coverage by 0.3426%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@               Coverage Diff                @@
##             master     #17338        +/-   ##
================================================
- Coverage   80.2052%   79.8625%   -0.3427%     
================================================
  Files           520        520                
  Lines        141477     140013      -1464     
================================================
- Hits         113472     111818      -1654     
- Misses        19088      19226       +138     
- Partials       8917       8969        +52     

Copy link
Member

@zz-jason zz-jason left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@eurekaka eurekaka added status/all-tests-passed status/LGT1 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 1. labels May 21, 2020
Copy link
Contributor

@SunRunAway SunRunAway left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@SunRunAway SunRunAway added status/can-merge Indicates a PR has been approved by a committer. status/LGT2 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 2. and removed status/LGT1 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 1. labels May 21, 2020
@sre-bot
Copy link
Contributor

sre-bot commented May 21, 2020

/run-all-tests

@sre-bot
Copy link
Contributor

sre-bot commented May 21, 2020

@eurekaka merge failed.

@SunRunAway
Copy link
Contributor

CI failed because of #17146

@SunRunAway
Copy link
Contributor

/merge

@sre-bot
Copy link
Contributor

sre-bot commented May 21, 2020

/run-all-tests

@sre-bot sre-bot merged commit 134e691 into pingcap:master May 21, 2020
@sre-bot
Copy link
Contributor

sre-bot commented May 21, 2020

cherry pick to release-3.1 in PR #17346

@sre-bot
Copy link
Contributor

sre-bot commented May 21, 2020

cherry pick to release-4.0 in PR #17347

@SunRunAway
Copy link
Contributor

Is this bug affected with v3.0? @eurekaka

@eurekaka
Copy link
Contributor Author

Is this bug affected with v3.0? @eurekaka

No.

@eurekaka eurekaka deleted the agg_topn branch May 22, 2020 02:21
eurekaka added a commit to sre-bot/tidb that referenced this pull request May 22, 2020
Signed-off-by: sre-bot <sre-bot@pingcap.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
sig/planner SIG: Planner status/can-merge Indicates a PR has been approved by a committer. status/LGT2 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 2. type/bugfix This PR fixes a bug.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

wrong results executing streamAgg with order by
5 participants