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: Use/force to apply prefer range scan #56928

Merged
merged 75 commits into from
Dec 9, 2024

Conversation

terry1purcell
Copy link
Contributor

@terry1purcell terry1purcell commented Oct 29, 2024

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: close #55632

Problem Summary:

What changed and how does it work?

MySQL will increase the cost of a table scan if FORCE INDEX is used in the query. TiDB does not differentiate between USE and FORCE in the query. This enhancement will add a cost penalty to a full table scan if USE or FORCE is used in the query. It will also apply to ANY full table scan in the query, and not only to the table that the USE/FORCE is applied to. This is in response to customer issues where USE/FORCE is specified, but they still see table scans chosen within their query.

If a USE/FORCE is specified against the PRIMARY index, and there are no other predicates (such that the scan is a full table scan of that primary) - this enhancement will increase that table scan cost.

The cost penalty does not apply to a table range scan.

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.

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. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. sig/planner SIG: Planner labels Oct 29, 2024
Copy link

tiprow bot commented Oct 29, 2024

Hi @terry1purcell. 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.

@hawkingrei hawkingrei self-requested a review October 29, 2024 02:59
@hawkingrei
Copy link
Member

/ok-to-test

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot added the ok-to-test Indicates a PR is ready to be tested. label Oct 29, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 29, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 74.8237%. Comparing base (9812d85) to head (d8c4bd8).
Report is 128 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@               Coverage Diff                @@
##             master     #56928        +/-   ##
================================================
+ Coverage   73.1839%   74.8237%   +1.6398%     
================================================
  Files          1671       1720        +49     
  Lines        460731     476167     +15436     
================================================
+ Hits         337181     356286     +19105     
+ Misses       102827      97606      -5221     
- Partials      20723      22275      +1552     
Flag Coverage Δ
integration 49.5419% <100.0000%> (?)
unit 72.2762% <100.0000%> (-0.0290%) ⬇️

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

Components Coverage Δ
dumpling 52.6910% <ø> (ø)
parser ∅ <ø> (∅)
br 61.6650% <ø> (+15.6606%) ⬆️

@terry1purcell terry1purcell changed the title planner: Use/force to trigger skyline pruning planner: Use/force to apply prefer range scan Oct 29, 2024
@hawkingrei
Copy link
Member

/retest

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot added size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Nov 1, 2024
@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot added size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Nov 2, 2024
@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot added the size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files. label Dec 4, 2024
Copy link

ti-chi-bot bot commented Dec 5, 2024

@qw4990: Your lgtm message is repeated, so it is ignored.

In response to this:

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.

@terry1purcell
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest

Copy link
Contributor

@AilinKid AilinKid left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Rest LGTM

pkg/planner/core/find_best_task.go Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link

ti-chi-bot bot commented Dec 9, 2024

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: AilinKid, qw4990

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 lgtm and removed needs-1-more-lgtm Indicates a PR needs 1 more LGTM. labels Dec 9, 2024
Copy link

ti-chi-bot bot commented Dec 9, 2024

[LGTM Timeline notifier]

Timeline:

  • 2024-11-25 07:17:15.077214159 +0000 UTC m=+448022.696868672: ☑️ agreed by qw4990.
  • 2024-12-09 08:16:52.135339716 +0000 UTC m=+253602.224142258: ☑️ agreed by AilinKid.

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot merged commit cdfdb8a into pingcap:master Dec 9, 2024
23 of 24 checks passed
@terry1purcell terry1purcell deleted the forced branch December 10, 2024 18:48
@terry1purcell terry1purcell restored the forced branch December 20, 2024 15:56
@terry1purcell terry1purcell added the needs-cherry-pick-release-8.5 Should cherry pick this PR to release-8.5 branch. label Dec 20, 2024
@ti-chi-bot
Copy link
Member

In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch release-8.5: #58444.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
affects-8.5 This bug affects the 8.5.x(LTS) versions. approved lgtm needs-cherry-pick-release-8.5 Should cherry pick this PR to release-8.5 branch. ok-to-test Indicates a PR is ready to be tested. release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. sig/planner SIG: Planner size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Planner avoid table scans for pseudo stats if index scan exists
6 participants