Implementation of Order by #537

CPWstatic · 2019-06-22T14:08:40Z

No description provided.

CPWstatic · 2019-06-22T14:17:33Z

jenkins go

nebula-community-bot · 2019-06-22T14:43:17Z

Unit testing passed.

laura-ding

Well done

src/graph/OrderByExecutor.cpp

src/graph/OrderByExecutor.h

src/parser/parser.yy

src/parser/scanner.lex

src/graph/OrderByExecutor.cpp

src/graph/test/OrderByTest.cpp

src/graph/test/TraverseTestBase.h

src/graph/OrderByExecutor.h

src/graph/OrderByExecutor.cpp

nebula-community-bot · 2019-06-25T04:38:27Z

Unit testing passed.

nebula-community-bot · 2019-06-25T07:29:15Z

Unit testing passed.

src/parser/scanner.lex

nebula-community-bot · 2019-06-26T03:27:06Z

Unit testing passed.

ayyt · 2019-06-26T03:30:24Z

src/parser/test/ParserTest.cpp

+ std::string query = "ORDER BY $-.id";
+ auto result = parser.parse(query);
+ ASSERT_TRUE(result.ok()) << result.status();
+ }


Can the ORDER BY clause be used alone?

i treat ORDER BY as a sentence for now. It would not be a syntax error, but return nothing.

Mark a TODO to explain.

ayyt · 2019-06-26T03:32:27Z

src/parser/parser.yy

+ : KW_ORDER KW_BY order_factors {
+ $$ = new OrderBySentence($3);
+ }
+ ;


IMO, it should be order_by_clause, not order_by_sentence.

i was discussing this with dutor and sheman before, it would be better a sentence at present, or it would made the go executor too much bloated. For further reason is that we have no optimization for execution plan for now. We should do some optimization for clause, and we'd prefer doing some go-clauses in storage layer for performance. But it is a challenge to this optimization, we'll disscuss this and put it on the agenda as soon as possible.

I think order by as a separate sql is weird, it should be an algorithm or a clause

ayyt · 2019-06-26T03:43:13Z

src/graph/OrderByExecutor.cpp

+ return lhs.value_.date < rhs.value_.date;
+ }
+ break;
+ }


To date, datetime, are you comparing by string or by corresponding value?

by value, how do u think? it depends on the implementation of storage actually. Date and Datetime is not implement in storage. For now, i am doing the sort with the union type of ColumnValue, because it is comparable.

Although date and datetime is not implemented, what I really care about is how to store these two types, whether they are stored as strings or converted to timestamps.

Do u mean that how to store in storage?

ayyt · 2019-06-26T03:43:24Z

src/graph/OrderByExecutor.cpp

+ return lhs.value_.datetime < rhs.value_.datetime;
+ }
+ break;
+ }


dutor

Excellent work!

src/graph/OrderByExecutor.cpp

dutor · 2019-06-27T03:17:58Z

src/graph/OrderByExecutor.cpp

+void OrderByExecutor::execute() {
+ FLOG_INFO("Executing Order By: %s", sentence_->toString().c_str());
+ auto comparator = [this] (cpp2::RowValue& lhs, cpp2::RowValue& rhs) {
+ auto lhsColumns = lhs.get_columns();


You are copying the columns.

IMO. You could eliminate the copying with const auto &lhsColumns = ..., provided that lhs and rhs are passed by const reference.

thank you!!!

dutor · 2019-06-27T03:18:45Z

src/graph/OrderByExecutor.cpp

+ switch (lhs.type_) {
+ case Type::bool_val:
+ {
+ if (!(lhs.value_.bool_val == rhs.value_.bool_val)) {


Any reason to check equality first?

As the offline discussion, the equality checking here is not necessary.

whitewum · 2019-06-27T03:41:52Z

src/parser/test/ScannerTest.cpp

+ CHECK_SEMANTIC_TYPE("order", TokenType::KW_ORDER),
+ CHECK_SEMANTIC_TYPE("ASC", TokenType::KW_ASC),
+ CHECK_SEMANTIC_TYPE("Asc", TokenType::KW_ASC),
+ CHECK_SEMANTIC_TYPE("asc", TokenType::KW_ASC),


desc already exist.

whitewum · 2019-06-27T05:26:40Z

src/graph/test/OrderByTest.cpp

+ {
+ cpp2::ExecutionResponse resp;
+ auto &player = players_["Boris Diaw"];
+ // Will not do sort if field name not exist in input schema


a bit weird. a warning to the user is better

whitewum · 2019-06-27T05:34:19Z

src/parser/test/ParserTest.cpp

+ std::string query = "ORDER BY $-.id";
+ auto result = parser.parse(query);
+ ASSERT_TRUE(result.ok()) << result.status();
+ }


Mark a TODO to explain.

nebula-community-bot · 2019-06-27T06:11:41Z

Unit testing passed.

nebula-community-bot · 2019-06-27T08:59:45Z

Unit testing passed.

dutor · 2019-06-28T02:01:02Z

There are conflicts with upstream. Please resolve them.

CPWstatic · 2019-06-28T02:55:14Z

There are conflicts with upstream. Please resolve them.

done

nebula-community-bot · 2019-06-28T03:04:37Z

Unit testing failed.

nebula-community-bot · 2019-06-28T03:46:20Z

Unit testing passed.

dutor

Great work.

nebula-community-bot · 2019-07-01T02:15:55Z

Unit testing passed.

* add order by sentence * Add order by executor * Add test for order by * Update order by test, parser test and scanner test. * Add InterimResult test for order by * Fix alignment problem * Delete keywords ASCEND,DESCEND * Add syntactic sugar for input_ref; Address dutor's comment. * Fix compile problem in ParserTest.

@critical27

2. remove some unused files  #### What type of PR is this? - [ ] bug - [ ] feature - [x] enhancement #### What problem(s) does this PR solve? Issue(s) number: Description: 1. add comments and adjust log level for meta 2. remove some unused files - the meta/processors/kv have been never used. After talked with @critical27 , we think could remove them. - the kv relative meta client code was also removed - the MetaCommon was also unused and removed #### How do you solve it? #### Special notes for your reviewer, ex. impact of this fix, design document, etc: #### Checklist: Tests: - [ ] Unit test(positive and negative cases) - [ ] Function test - [ ] Performance test - [ ] N/A Affects: - [ ] Documentation affected (Please add the label if documentation needs to be modified.) - [ ] Incompatibility (If it breaks the compatibility, please describe it and add the label.） - [ ] If it's needed to cherry-pick (If cherry-pick to some branches is required, please label the destination version(s).) - [ ] Performance impacted: Consumes more CPU/Memory #### Release notes: Please confirm whether to be reflected in release notes and how to describe: > ex. Fixed the bug ..... Migrated from vesoft-inc#3709 Co-authored-by: pengwei.song <90180021+pengweisong@users.noreply.github.com>

CPWstatic added the ready-for-testing PR: ready for the CI test label Jun 22, 2019

laura-ding reviewed Jun 25, 2019

View reviewed changes

wadeliuyi reviewed Jun 25, 2019

View reviewed changes

src/graph/OrderByExecutor.cpp Show resolved Hide resolved

CPWstatic requested review from dutor, ayyt and whitewum June 25, 2019 06:48

ayyt reviewed Jun 25, 2019

View reviewed changes

src/parser/scanner.lex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

ayyt reviewed Jun 26, 2019

View reviewed changes

dutor reviewed Jun 27, 2019

View reviewed changes

whitewum reviewed Jun 27, 2019

View reviewed changes

CPWstatic force-pushed the order_by branch from 9e9a052 to ad87cd2 Compare June 27, 2019 08:22

CPWstatic added 8 commits June 28, 2019 10:41

add order by sentence

5ab945b

Add order by executor

9f4f8a6

Add test for order by

d1a6f8e

Update order by test, parser test and scanner test.

c4bce2c

Add InterimResult test for order by

6e11225

Fix alignment problem

4dbb57c

Delete keywords ASCEND,DESCEND

8786934

Add syntactic sugar for input_ref; Address dutor's comment.

bac23ef

CPWstatic force-pushed the order_by branch from ad87cd2 to bac23ef Compare June 28, 2019 02:52

Fix compile problem in ParserTest.

fa8a0e3

dutor previously approved these changes Jun 28, 2019

View reviewed changes

laura-ding previously approved these changes Jun 28, 2019

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'master' into order_by

bf107b2

dutor dismissed stale reviews from laura-ding and themself via bf107b2 July 1, 2019 01:46

dutor approved these changes Jul 1, 2019

View reviewed changes

laura-ding approved these changes Jul 1, 2019

View reviewed changes

dutor merged commit e4a9f0e into vesoft-inc:master Jul 1, 2019

CPWstatic mentioned this pull request Jul 26, 2019

Implementation of set op. #696

Merged

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Implementation of Order by #537

Implementation of Order by #537

CPWstatic commented Jun 22, 2019

CPWstatic commented Jun 22, 2019

nebula-community-bot commented Jun 22, 2019

laura-ding left a comment

nebula-community-bot commented Jun 25, 2019

nebula-community-bot commented Jun 25, 2019

nebula-community-bot commented Jun 26, 2019

ayyt Jun 26, 2019

CPWstatic Jun 26, 2019

whitewum Jun 27, 2019

ayyt Jun 26, 2019

CPWstatic Jun 26, 2019

ayyt Jun 26, 2019

ayyt Jun 26, 2019

CPWstatic Jun 26, 2019

ayyt Jun 26, 2019

CPWstatic Jun 26, 2019

ayyt Jun 26, 2019

dutor left a comment •

edited

Loading

dutor Jun 27, 2019

CPWstatic Jun 27, 2019

dutor Jun 27, 2019 •

edited

Loading

dutor Jun 27, 2019

whitewum Jun 27, 2019

CPWstatic Jun 27, 2019

whitewum Jun 27, 2019

whitewum Jun 27, 2019

nebula-community-bot commented Jun 27, 2019

nebula-community-bot commented Jun 27, 2019

dutor commented Jun 28, 2019

CPWstatic commented Jun 28, 2019

nebula-community-bot commented Jun 28, 2019

nebula-community-bot commented Jun 28, 2019

dutor left a comment

nebula-community-bot commented Jul 1, 2019

Implementation of Order by #537

Implementation of Order by #537

Conversation

CPWstatic commented Jun 22, 2019

CPWstatic commented Jun 22, 2019

nebula-community-bot commented Jun 22, 2019

laura-ding left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

nebula-community-bot commented Jun 25, 2019

nebula-community-bot commented Jun 25, 2019

nebula-community-bot commented Jun 26, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dutor left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dutor Jun 27, 2019 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

nebula-community-bot commented Jun 27, 2019

nebula-community-bot commented Jun 27, 2019

dutor commented Jun 28, 2019

CPWstatic commented Jun 28, 2019

nebula-community-bot commented Jun 28, 2019

nebula-community-bot commented Jun 28, 2019

dutor left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

nebula-community-bot commented Jul 1, 2019

dutor left a comment •

edited

Loading

dutor Jun 27, 2019 •

edited

Loading