sql: add FORCE_INVERTED_INDEX hint

[mgartner]

sql/parser: add parse-no-verify test command

The parse-no-verify test command has been added to data-driven parser
tests. In addition, the error test command now asserts that parsing
the statement results in an error.

Release note: None

sql/parser: move index hint tests to new file

This is purely a mechanical movement of parser tests with index hints
into a new file.

Release note: None

sql/parser: support FORCE_INVERTED_INDEX hint

This commit adds parsing support for the FORCE_INVERTED_INDEX hint. The
hint currently has no effect.

Release note: None

sql: support FORCE_INVERTED_INDEX hint

Epic: None

Release note (sql change): The FORCE_INVERTED_INDEX hint is now
supported. This makes the optimizer prefer a query plan scan over any
inverted index of the hinted table. The query will result in an error if
no such query plan can be generated.

[cockroach-teamcity]

This change is 

[DrewKimball]

Nice!

Reviewed 4 of 4 files at r1, 2 of 2 files at r2, 3 of 3 files at r3, 8 of 8 files at r4, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! 1 of 0 LGTMs obtained (waiting on @mgartner and @rytaft)

---

pkg/sql/parser/sql.y line 941 at r3 (raw file):

%token <str> FAILURE FALSE FAMILY FETCH FETCHVAL FETCHTEXT FETCHVAL_PATH FETCHTEXT_PATH
%token <str> FILES FILTER
%token <str> FIRST FLOAT FLOAT4 FLOAT8 FLOORDIV FOLLOWING FOR FORCE FORCE_INDEX FORCE_INVERTED_SCAN

Should it be FORCE_INVERTED_INDEX instead? You could justify either, but it'll be hard to change once we go with one.

[mgartner]

pkg/sql/parser/sql.y line 941 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, DrewKimball (Drew Kimball) wrote…

Should it be FORCE_INVERTED_INDEX instead? You could justify either, but it'll be hard to change once we go with one.

Hmmm, tough call. On the one hand FORCE_INVERTED_INDEX would be more consistent with the existing FORCE_INDEX hint. On the other hand, with FORCE_INDEX you must specify an index to force, which could be non-inverted or inverted, while this new hint will not allow specifying an index, so FORCE_INVERTED_SCAN might be better? On the third hand, in the future we could extend FORCE_INVERTED_INDEX to allow specifying an inverted index.

[mgartner]

pkg/sql/parser/sql.y line 941 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, mgartner (Marcus Gartner) wrote…

Hmmm, tough call. On the one hand FORCE_INVERTED_INDEX would be more consistent with the existing FORCE_INDEX hint. On the other hand, with FORCE_INDEX you must specify an index to force, which could be non-inverted or inverted, while this new hint will not allow specifying an index, so FORCE_INVERTED_SCAN might be better? On the third hand, in the future we could extend FORCE_INVERTED_INDEX to allow specifying an inverted index.

I went with FORCE_INVERTED_INDEX. Thanks for the feedback!

[mgartner]

TFTR!

bors r=DrewKimball

[craig]

Build succeeded:

• Bazel Essential CI (Cockroach)
• macos_amd64_build
• macos_arm64_build
• windows_build

[mgartner]

blathers backport 23.1

[blathers-crl]

Encountered an error creating backports. Some common things that can go wrong:

1. The backport branch might have already existed.
2. There was a merge conflict.
3. The backport branch contained merge commits.

You might need to create your backport manually using the backport tool.

---

error creating merge commit from 32d981b to blathers/backport-release-23.1-120384: POST https://api.github.com/repos/cockroachdb/cockroach/merges: 409 Merge conflict []

you may need to manually resolve merge conflicts with the backport tool.

Backport to branch 23.1 failed. See errors above.

---

_{🦉 Hoot! I am a Blathers, a bot for CockroachDB. My owner is dev-inf.}

[mgartner]

blathers backport 23.2

[blathers-crl]

Encountered an error creating backports. Some common things that can go wrong:

1. The backport branch might have already existed.
2. There was a merge conflict.
3. The backport branch contained merge commits.

You might need to create your backport manually using the backport tool.

---

error creating merge commit from 32d981b to blathers/backport-release-23.2-120384: POST https://api.github.com/repos/cockroachdb/cockroach/merges: 409 Merge conflict []

you may need to manually resolve merge conflicts with the backport tool.

Backport to branch 23.2 failed. See errors above.

---

_{🦉 Hoot! I am a Blathers, a bot for CockroachDB. My owner is dev-inf.}

[mgartner]

blather backport 24.1

[rytaft]

blathers backport 24.1

[blathers-crl]

Encountered an error creating backports. Some common things that can go wrong:

1. The backport branch might have already existed.
2. There was a merge conflict.
3. The backport branch contained merge commits.

You might need to create your backport manually using the backport tool.

---

error creating merge commit from b78cfaa to blathers/backport-release-24.1-120384: POST https://api.github.com/repos/cockroachdb/cockroach/merges: 409 Merge conflict []

you may need to manually resolve merge conflicts with the backport tool.

Backport to branch 24.1 failed. See errors above.

---

_{🦉 Hoot! I am a Blathers, a bot for CockroachDB. My owner is dev-inf.}

[mgartner]

Lol, thanks for the assist. Looks like I'm doing these all manually though. 🙃

[rytaft]

Haha oh well...

[mgartner]

This doesn't need to be backported to 24.1—it was merged before the release-24.1 branch was cut.