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

Improved planner logic #428

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Aug 6, 2021
Merged

Improved planner logic #428

merged 2 commits into from
Aug 6, 2021

Conversation

asdine
Copy link
Collaborator

@asdine asdine commented Aug 6, 2021

This is a an evolution of the index selection logic
that will allow us to add more improvements in the future.
This also adds support for using a composite index with multiple
IN operators.

@asdine asdine linked an issue Aug 6, 2021 that may be closed by this pull request
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Aug 6, 2021

Codecov Report

Merging #428 (c1cc69d) into main (402b5a6) will increase coverage by 0.18%.
The diff coverage is 83.18%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #428      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   68.80%   68.99%   +0.18%     
==========================================
  Files          93       94       +1     
  Lines        9692     9706      +14     
==========================================
+ Hits         6669     6697      +28     
+ Misses       2299     2289      -10     
+ Partials      724      720       -4     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
internal/expr/operator.go 44.06% <ø> (+3.44%) ⬆️
internal/planner/optimizer.go 78.15% <ø> (+0.35%) ⬆️
internal/sql/parser/create.go 85.41% <42.85%> (-0.91%) ⬇️
internal/planner/index_selection.go 84.44% <84.44%> (ø)

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 402b5a6...c1cc69d. Read the comment docs.

@asdine asdine merged commit eb48596 into main Aug 6, 2021
@asdine asdine deleted the multiple-in branch August 6, 2021 00:54
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Support multiple IN clause when using composite indexes
2 participants