planner: fix hash partition prune with is null condition

[Defined2014]

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: close #58374

Problem Summary: Let codes in getUsedHashPartitions same as getUsedKeyPartitions.

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

[tiprow]

Hi @Defined2014. 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.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 74.9382%. Comparing base (1405c5e) to head (ecee0b7).
Report is 18 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@               Coverage Diff                @@
##             master     #58383        +/-   ##
================================================
+ Coverage   73.1849%   74.9382%   +1.7532%     
================================================
  Files          1681       1726        +45     
  Lines        463027     472891      +9864     
================================================
+ Hits         338866     354376     +15510     
+ Misses       103358      96282      -7076     
- Partials      20803      22233      +1430     

Flag	Coverage Δ
integration	49.0094% <100.0000%> (?)
unit	72.2957% <100.0000%> (-0.0211%)	⬇️

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	61.3893% <ø> (+15.3873%)	⬆️

[Defined2014]

/hold

[Defined2014]

/unhold

[mjonss]

If we de-duplicate the partition columns from the expression, we can improve the PR.

[mjonss]

LGTM after de-duplication.

[ti-chi-bot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

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

• pkg/planner/OWNERS [qw4990]

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]

[LGTM Timeline notifier]

Timeline:

• 2024-12-19 07:33:31.66267367 +0000 UTC m=+1115001.751476209: ☑️ agreed by qw4990.
• 2024-12-19 09:28:31.871680972 +0000 UTC m=+1121901.960483499: ☑️ agreed by mjonss.

[Defined2014]

/retest

[tiprow]

@Defined2014: 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.

[Defined2014]

/retest

[tiprow]

@Defined2014: 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.