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

executor: reuse chunk in hash join v2 during restoring #56936

Merged
merged 14 commits into from
Dec 5, 2024

Conversation

xzhangxian1008
Copy link
Contributor

@xzhangxian1008 xzhangxian1008 commented Oct 29, 2024

What problem does this PR solve?

image

image

Issue Number: close #56828

Problem Summary:

What changed and how does it work?

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/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Oct 29, 2024
Copy link

tiprow bot commented Oct 29, 2024

Hi @xzhangxian1008. 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.

@xzhangxian1008
Copy link
Contributor Author

/cc @windtalker @XuHuaiyu

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot requested review from windtalker and XuHuaiyu October 29, 2024 05:14
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 29, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 83.09859% with 12 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 73.6575%. Comparing base (30069c5) to head (7ee28e8).
Report is 2 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@               Coverage Diff                @@
##             master     #56936        +/-   ##
================================================
+ Coverage   73.1633%   73.6575%   +0.4941%     
================================================
  Files          1674       1674                
  Lines        461261     461669       +408     
================================================
+ Hits         337474     340054      +2580     
+ Misses       103041     100876      -2165     
+ Partials      20746      20739         -7     
Flag Coverage Δ
integration 43.2952% <0.0000%> (?)
unit 72.3221% <83.0985%> (+0.0324%) ⬆️

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 45.9803% <ø> (-0.0271%) ⬇️

return chk, nil
}

// FillChunk fills a Chunk from the DataInDiskByChunks by chkIdx.
func (d *DataInDiskByChunks) FillChunk(chkIdx int, chk *Chunk) error {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
func (d *DataInDiskByChunks) FillChunk(chkIdx int, chk *Chunk) error {
func (d *DataInDiskByChunks) FillChunk(srcChkIdx int, destChk *Chunk) error {

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

done

@@ -81,6 +81,7 @@ type hashJoinSpillHelper struct {
spillTriggedInBuildingStageForTest bool
spillTriggeredBeforeBuildingHashTableForTest bool
allPartitionsSpilledForTest bool
skipProbeInRestoreForTest bool
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why we need this?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why we need this?

I find that one test case is not covered before and add it in this pr.

@@ -434,6 +436,7 @@ type BuildWorkerV2 struct {
HasNullableKey bool
WorkerID uint
builder *rowTableBuilder
restoredChk *chunk.Chunk
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

restoredChkBuf ?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

restoredChkBuf ?

done

@XuHuaiyu
Copy link
Contributor

Can we get the heap profile to show the difference after this commit?

{true, leftKeys, rightKeys, leftTypes, rightTypes, []int{0, 1, 3, 4}, []int{0, 2, 3, 4}, otherCondition, []int{0}, []int{4}, []int64{5000000, 1700000, 6000000, 1500000, 10000}},
{false, leftKeys, rightKeys, leftTypes, rightTypes, []int{0, 1, 3, 4}, []int{0, 2, 3, 4}, otherCondition, []int{0}, []int{4}, []int64{5000000, 1700000, 6000000, 1500000, 10000}},
{true, leftKeys, rightKeys, leftTypes, rightTypes, []int{0, 1, 3, 4}, []int{0, 2, 3, 4}, otherCondition, []int{0}, []int{4}, []int64{5000000, 1700000, 6000000, 500000, 10000}},
{false, leftKeys, rightKeys, leftTypes, rightTypes, []int{0, 1, 3, 4}, []int{0, 2, 3, 4}, otherCondition, []int{0}, []int{4}, []int64{5000000, 1700000, 6000000, 500000, 10000}},
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

why change these?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

why change these?

I find that one test case is not covered before and add it in this pr.

@xzhangxian1008
Copy link
Contributor Author

Can we get the heap profile to show the difference after this commit?

I will paste it in this pr.

Copy link
Contributor

@windtalker windtalker 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 approved needs-1-more-lgtm Indicates a PR needs 1 more LGTM. labels Nov 12, 2024
@xzhangxian1008
Copy link
Contributor Author

/cc @XuHuaiyu

@@ -359,6 +360,8 @@ type ProbeWorkerV2 struct {
// We build individual joinProbe for each join worker when use chunk-based
// execution, to avoid the concurrency of joiner.chk and joiner.selected.
JoinProbe ProbeV2

restoredChk *chunk.Chunk
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

restoredChkBuf

Copy link

ti-chi-bot bot commented Nov 22, 2024

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: windtalker, XuHuaiyu

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:
  • OWNERS [XuHuaiyu,windtalker]

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 Nov 22, 2024
Copy link

ti-chi-bot bot commented Nov 22, 2024

[LGTM Timeline notifier]

Timeline:

  • 2024-11-12 07:17:23.263774468 +0000 UTC m=+340605.454643465: ☑️ agreed by windtalker.
  • 2024-11-22 02:38:22.450324405 +0000 UTC m=+172090.069978922: ☑️ agreed by XuHuaiyu.

@xzhangxian1008
Copy link
Contributor Author

/cherrypick release-8.5

@ti-chi-bot
Copy link
Member

@xzhangxian1008: once the present PR merges, I will cherry-pick it on top of release-8.5 in the new PR and assign it to you.

In response to this:

/cherrypick release-8.5

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 ti-community-infra/tichi repository.

@xzhangxian1008
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest

Copy link

tiprow bot commented Nov 22, 2024

@xzhangxian1008: 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

tiprow bot commented Nov 22, 2024

@xzhangxian1008: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name Commit Details Required Rerun command
fast_test_tiprow 851f998 link true /test fast_test_tiprow

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

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. I understand the commands that are listed here.

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot merged commit f0070f5 into pingcap:master Dec 5, 2024
22 checks passed
@xzhangxian1008 xzhangxian1008 deleted the reuse-chk-hj-spill branch December 5, 2024 13:01
@ti-chi-bot
Copy link
Member

@xzhangxian1008: new pull request created to branch release-8.5: #58018.

In response to this:

/cherrypick release-8.5

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 ti-community-infra/tichi repository.

ti-chi-bot pushed a commit to ti-chi-bot/tidb that referenced this pull request Dec 5, 2024
Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <ti-community-prow-bot@tidb.io>
@xzhangxian1008
Copy link
Contributor Author

/cherrypick release-8.5

@ti-chi-bot
Copy link
Member

@xzhangxian1008: new pull request could not be created: failed to create pull request against pingcap/tidb#release-8.5 from head ti-chi-bot:cherry-pick-56936-to-release-8.5: status code 422 not one of [201], body: {"message":"Validation Failed","errors":[{"resource":"PullRequest","code":"custom","message":"A pull request already exists for ti-chi-bot:cherry-pick-56936-to-release-8.5."}],"documentation_url":"https://docs.github.com/rest/pulls/pulls#create-a-pull-request","status":"422"}

In response to this:

/cherrypick release-8.5

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 ti-community-infra/tichi repository.

ti-chi-bot pushed a commit to ti-chi-bot/tidb that referenced this pull request Dec 5, 2024
Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <ti-community-prow-bot@tidb.io>
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. 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.

Reuse chunk in hash join spill
4 participants