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

refactor: move more code from logical plans to ops #14287

Merged
merged 10 commits into from
Oct 18, 2023

Conversation

systay
Copy link
Collaborator

@systay systay commented Oct 16, 2023

Description

We have good support for rewriting our query plans in the operator side of the planner. This PR moves a few constructs that were still planned on the logicalPlan structures over to the operators.

The remaining responsibility of the logicalPlan implementations is now to build the engine primitive tree.

Related Issue(s)

Tracking issue #11626

Checklist

  • "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported
  • Tests were added or are not required
  • Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on the CI
  • Documentation was added or is not required

Deployment Notes

@vitess-bot
Copy link
Contributor

vitess-bot bot commented Oct 16, 2023

Review Checklist

Hello reviewers! 👋 Please follow this checklist when reviewing this Pull Request.

General

  • Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
  • Ensure there is a link to an issue (except for internal cleanup and flaky test fixes), new features should have an RFC that documents use cases and test cases.

Tests

  • Bug fixes should have at least one unit or end-to-end test, enhancement and new features should have a sufficient number of tests.

Documentation

  • Apply the release notes (needs details) label if users need to know about this change.
  • New features should be documented.
  • There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.
  • There should be a comment at the top of each new or modified test to explain what the test does.

New flags

  • Is this flag really necessary?
  • Flag names must be clear and intuitive, use dashes (-), and have a clear help text.

If a workflow is added or modified:

  • Each item in Jobs should be named in order to mark it as required.
  • If the workflow needs to be marked as required, the maintainer team must be notified.

Backward compatibility

  • Protobuf changes should be wire-compatible.
  • Changes to _vt tables and RPCs need to be backward compatible.
  • RPC changes should be compatible with vitess-operator
  • If a flag is removed, then it should also be removed from vitess-operator and arewefastyet, if used there.
  • vtctl command output order should be stable and awk-able.

@vitess-bot vitess-bot bot added NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says labels Oct 16, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v19.0.0 milestone Oct 16, 2023
@systay systay added Type: Internal Cleanup Component: Query Serving and removed NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request labels Oct 17, 2023
@systay systay marked this pull request as ready for review October 17, 2023 14:52
@systay systay changed the title refactor: move remaining tidbits from logical plans to ops refactor: move more code from logical plans to ops Oct 17, 2023
Comment on lines +460 to +467
scatterAsWarns := directives.IsSet(sqlparser.DirectiveScatterErrorsAsWarnings)
timeout := queryTimeout(directives)
multiShardAutoCommit := directives.IsSet(sqlparser.DirectiveMultiShardAutocommit)
return &queryHints{
scatterErrorsAsWarnings: scatterAsWarns,
multiShardAutocommit: multiShardAutoCommit,
queryTimeout: timeout,
}

This comment was marked as off-topic.

Comment on lines +784 to +797
if err != nil {
return nil, vterrors.Wrap(err, "unexpected expression in LIMIT")
}
plan.elimit.Count = pv

if limit.Offset != nil {
pv, err = evalengine.Translate(limit.Offset, nil)
if err != nil {
return nil, vterrors.Wrap(err, "unexpected expression in OFFSET")
}
plan.elimit.Offset = pv
}

return plan, nil
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Shouldn't we use vterrors errors here?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I just moved this method from postprocess.go. It's not wrong to use Wrap, right?

Copy link
Member

@frouioui frouioui left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Awesome refactoring! No test expectations have changed and this is 💯 Thank you!

@systay systay merged commit 705deee into vitessio:main Oct 18, 2023
115 of 116 checks passed
@systay systay deleted the lp-clean branch October 18, 2023 05:17
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants