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

table: simplify the locate partition args for PartitionedTable #53432

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 22, 2024

Conversation

lcwangchao
Copy link
Collaborator

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: close #53431

Problem Summary:

Seems we can replace expression.BuildContext with expression.EvalContext for PartitionedTable because we only need to "evaluate" an expression.

What changed and how does it work?

  • delete some unnecessary codes
  • Replace expression.BuildContext with expression.EvalContext in some methods in PartitionedTable

Check List

Tests

  • Unit test
  • Integration test
  • Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
  • No need to test
    • I checked and no code files have been changed.
      Just regress exist tests

Side effects

  • Performance regression: Consumes more CPU
  • Performance regression: Consumes more Memory
  • Breaking backward compatibility

Documentation

  • Affects user behaviors
  • Contains syntax changes
  • Contains variable changes
  • Contains experimental features
  • Changes MySQL compatibility

Release note

Please refer to Release Notes Language Style Guide to write a quality release note.

None

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot added release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. sig/planner SIG: Planner size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. labels May 21, 2024
Copy link

tiprow bot commented May 21, 2024

Hi @lcwangchao. Thanks for your PR.

PRs from untrusted users cannot be marked as trusted with /ok-to-test in this repo meaning untrusted PR authors can never trigger tests themselves. Collaborators can still trigger tests on the PR using /test all.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

Comment on lines -1375 to -1382
if t.meta.Partition.Expr != "" {
e, err := expression.ParseSimpleExpr(ctx, t.meta.Partition.Expr, expression.WithTableInfo("", t.meta))
if err == nil {
val, _, err := e.EvalInt(ctx.GetEvalCtx(), chunk.MutRowFromDatums(r).ToRow())
if err == nil {
valueMsg = strconv.FormatInt(val, 10)
}
}
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Seems this branch is only for range partitioning table, so I removed it. PTAL @mjonss

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Right, if it is RANGE COLUMNS, then t.meta.Partition.Expr should be empty, since it should only allow a list of columns.

Comment on lines -1440 to -1450
e, err := expression.ParseSimpleExpr(ctx, t.meta.Partition.Expr, expression.WithTableInfo("", t.meta))
if err == nil {
val, _, err := e.EvalInt(ctx.GetEvalCtx(), chunk.MutRowFromDatums(r).ToRow())
if err == nil {
if unsigned {
valueMsg = fmt.Sprintf("%d", uint64(val))
} else {
valueMsg = fmt.Sprintf("%d", val)
}
}
}
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The expression value seems already computed in the previous step and we can just use ret in the message. PTAL @mjonss

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Seems right.

Copy link

codecov bot commented May 21, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 94.73684% with 2 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 74.5121%. Comparing base (b69f81b) to head (12dfe39).
Report is 13 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@               Coverage Diff                @@
##             master     #53432        +/-   ##
================================================
+ Coverage   72.5410%   74.5121%   +1.9711%     
================================================
  Files          1505       1505                
  Lines        429838     431139      +1301     
================================================
+ Hits         311809     321251      +9442     
+ Misses        98743      89959      -8784     
- Partials      19286      19929       +643     
Flag Coverage Δ
integration 49.1212% <76.3157%> (?)
unit 71.3549% <86.8421%> (-0.0802%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Components Coverage Δ
dumpling 53.9957% <ø> (ø)
parser ∅ <ø> (∅)
br 50.3994% <ø> (+9.0124%) ⬆️

@lcwangchao
Copy link
Collaborator Author

/retest

Copy link

tiprow bot commented May 21, 2024

@lcwangchao: Cannot trigger testing until a trusted user reviews the PR and leaves an /ok-to-test message.

In response to this:

/retest

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

@lcwangchao
Copy link
Collaborator Author

/retest

Copy link

tiprow bot commented May 21, 2024

@lcwangchao: Cannot trigger testing until a trusted user reviews the PR and leaves an /ok-to-test message.

In response to this:

/retest

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

Copy link
Contributor

@mjonss mjonss left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot added the needs-1-more-lgtm Indicates a PR needs 1 more LGTM. label May 21, 2024
@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot added lgtm and removed needs-1-more-lgtm Indicates a PR needs 1 more LGTM. labels May 22, 2024
Copy link

ti-chi-bot bot commented May 22, 2024

[LGTM Timeline notifier]

Timeline:

  • 2024-05-21 09:35:39.222410615 +0000 UTC m=+2164292.979546180: ☑️ agreed by mjonss.
  • 2024-05-22 03:16:06.155811051 +0000 UTC m=+2227919.912946624: ☑️ agreed by tangenta.

Copy link

ti-chi-bot bot commented May 22, 2024

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: mjonss, qw4990, tangenta

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot added the approved label May 22, 2024
@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot merged commit a6b4fca into pingcap:master May 22, 2024
23 checks passed
@lcwangchao lcwangchao deleted the partition_eval_ctx branch May 22, 2024 11:12
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved lgtm release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. sig/planner SIG: Planner size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Simplify the input argument of GetPartitionXXX methods in PartitionedTable
4 participants