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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Reference Table DML Join Fix #17414

Open
wants to merge 6 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Reference Table DML Join Fix #17414

wants to merge 6 commits into from
+351 −93

Conversation

harshit-gangal
Copy link
Member

@harshit-gangal harshit-gangal commented Dec 19, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Description

This PR fixes the issue with join query with reference table and sharded query.
An update/delete on reference table does not get routed to the source table.
This change checks the update/delete target and does not choose the alternate route of the query.

Backport Reason: Issue started after supporting join queries in DML from v20. This is a correctness issue as reference table is updated instead of the source table.

Related Issue(s)

Checklist

  • "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported to release branches
  • If this change is to be back-ported to previous releases, a justification is included in the PR description
  • Tests were added or are not required
  • Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on CI?
  • Documentation was added or is not required

@vitess-bot vitess-bot
Copy link
Contributor

vitess-bot bot commented Dec 19, 2024

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 NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required 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 Dec 19, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v22.0.0 milestone Dec 19, 2024
@harshit-gangal harshit-gangal added Type: Bug Component: Query Serving Backport to: release-20.0 Needs to be backport to release-20.0 Backport to: release-21.0 Needs to be backport to release-21.0 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 NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required labels Dec 23, 2024
@harshit-gangal harshit-gangal marked this pull request as ready for review December 23, 2024 09:04
@codecov Codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 23, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 60.60606% with 13 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 67.65%. Comparing base (9383943) to head (874322e).
Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
go/vt/sqlparser/ast_funcs.go 0.00% 13 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files 
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #17414      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   67.67%   67.65%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files        1583     1584       +1     
  Lines      254363   254372       +9     
==========================================
- Hits       172140   172098      -42     
- Misses      82223    82274      +51

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

GuptaManan100
GuptaManan100 reviewed Dec 30, 2024
View reviewed changes
go/test/endtoend/vtgate/plan_tests/plan_e2e_test.go
mcmp.Exec(test.Query)
stmt, err := sqlparser.NewTestParser().Parse(test.Query)
require.NoError(mcmp.AsT(), err)
sqlparser.RemoveKeyspaceIgnoreSysSchema(stmt)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why do we need this?

go/vt/vtgate/planbuilder/operators/join_merging.go
@@ -171,13 +171,15 @@ func getRoutesOrAlternates(lhsRoute, rhsRoute *Route) (*Route, *Route, Routing,
return lhsRoute, rhsRoute, routingA, routingB, sameKeyspace
}

if refA, ok := routingA.(*AnyShardRouting); ok {
if refA, ok := routingA.(*AnyShardRouting); ok &&
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

What are we trying to do here? Could we add a comment for it?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@GuptaManan100 GuptaManan100 GuptaManan100 left review comments

@systay systay Awaiting requested review from systay systay is a code owner

@frouioui frouioui Awaiting requested review from frouioui frouioui is a code owner

@arthurschreiber arthurschreiber Awaiting requested review from arthurschreiber arthurschreiber is a code owner

@deepthi deepthi Awaiting requested review from deepthi deepthi is a code owner

At least 2 approving reviews are required to merge this pull request.

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
Backport to: release-20.0 Needs to be backport to release-20.0 Backport to: release-21.0 Needs to be backport to release-21.0 Component: Query Serving Type: Bug
Projects
None yet
Milestone
v22.0.0
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Bug Report: Routing DML of reference tables to the source fails when it's part of a join
2 participants
@harshit-gangal @GuptaManan100