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

Pipeline: Support pipeline table scan fullstack part 1 #7225

Merged

Conversation

ywqzzy
Copy link
Contributor

@ywqzzy ywqzzy commented Apr 6, 2023

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: ref #6518

Problem Summary:

What is changed and how it works?

Check List

Tests

  • Unit test
  • Integration test
  • Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
  • No code

Side effects

  • Performance regression: Consumes more CPU
  • Performance regression: Consumes more Memory
  • Breaking backward compatibility

Documentation

  • Affects user behaviors
  • Contains syntax changes
  • Contains variable changes
  • Contains experimental features
  • Changes MySQL compatibility

Release note

None

@ti-chi-bot
Copy link
Member

ti-chi-bot commented Apr 6, 2023

[REVIEW NOTIFICATION]

This pull request has been approved by:

  • Lloyd-Pottiger
  • SeaRise

To complete the pull request process, please ask the reviewers in the list to review by filling /cc @reviewer in the comment.
After your PR has acquired the required number of LGTMs, you can assign this pull request to the committer in the list by filling /assign @committer in the comment to help you merge this pull request.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Reviewer can indicate their review by submitting an approval review.
Reviewer can cancel approval by submitting a request changes review.

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files. labels Apr 6, 2023
@ywqzzy
Copy link
Contributor Author

ywqzzy commented Apr 6, 2023

/run-all-tests

@ywqzzy ywqzzy force-pushed the support_pipeline_table_scan_fullstack branch from de73ae5 to e6314d5 Compare April 7, 2023 06:29
@ywqzzy
Copy link
Contributor Author

ywqzzy commented Apr 12, 2023

/run-all-tests

Copy link
Contributor

@SeaRise SeaRise left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

And use failpoint region_exception_after_read_from_storage_some_error and region_exception_after_read_from_storage_all_error to add test for pipeline remote read.

dbms/src/Operators/CoprocessorReaderSourceOp.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
dbms/src/Flash/Coprocessor/DAGStorageInterpreter.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
dbms/src/Flash/Coprocessor/DAGStorageInterpreter.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
dbms/src/Flash/Coprocessor/DAGStorageInterpreter.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@SeaRise
Copy link
Contributor

SeaRise commented Apr 13, 2023

Seems that

// now only support pipeline model in test mode.
if (context.isTest()
need to be modified.
Support non-test-mode and forbid Disagg mode.
Others LGTM

@ywqzzy ywqzzy requested a review from SeaRise April 13, 2023 06:25
@ywqzzy ywqzzy requested a review from Lloyd-Pottiger April 18, 2023 08:36
@ywqzzy
Copy link
Contributor Author

ywqzzy commented Apr 19, 2023

/run-all-tests

@ywqzzy ywqzzy requested a review from xzhangxian1008 April 19, 2023 02:35
@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added status/LGT2 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 2. and removed status/LGT1 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 1. labels Apr 19, 2023
@SeaRise SeaRise mentioned this pull request Apr 19, 2023
25 tasks
Comment on lines +50 to +52
const auto & col_index = std::get<0>(ele);
const auto & col_name = std::get<1>(ele);
const auto & data_type = std::get<2>(ele);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
const auto & col_index = std::get<0>(ele);
const auto & col_name = std::get<1>(ele);
const auto & data_type = std::get<2>(ele);
constexpr int col_index_pos = 1;
constexpr int col_name_pos = 2;
constexpr int data_type_pos = 3;
const auto & col_index = std::get<col_index_pos>(ele);
const auto & col_name = std::get<col_name_pos>(ele);
const auto & data_type = std::get<data_type_pos>(ele);

Maybe get tuple's value with meaningful const name is better

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe get tuple's value with meaningful const name is better

Only use for 1 time. I will keep it

// Validation check.
for (size_t i = 1; i < generated_column_infos.size(); ++i)
{
RUNTIME_CHECK(std::get<0>(generated_column_infos[i]) > std::get<0>(generated_column_infos[i - 1]));
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ditto

{
assert(root_node);
PipelineBuilder builder{log->identifier()};
root_node->buildPipeline(builder);
root_node->buildPipeline(builder, context, exec_status);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe we can define a helper struct to contain buildPipeline parameters?
such as:

struct buildPipelineParams {
  PipelineExecutorStatus exec_status;
  Context * context;
};

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe we can define a helper struct to contain buildPipeline parameters? such as:

struct buildPipelineParams {
  PipelineExecutorStatus exec_status;
  Context * context;
};

Not necessary? Since so many place can use struct as Param, IMHO only if the api is not stable and need to change frequently, we can use struct to hold all the param

Copy link
Contributor

@xzhangxian1008 xzhangxian1008 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm

@ti-chi-bot
Copy link
Member

@xzhangxian1008: Thanks for your review. The bot only counts approvals from reviewers and higher roles in list, but you're still welcome to leave your comments.

In response to this:

lgtm

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the ti-community-infra/tichi repository.

@ywqzzy
Copy link
Contributor Author

ywqzzy commented Apr 20, 2023

/merge

@ti-chi-bot
Copy link
Member

@ywqzzy: It seems you want to merge this PR, I will help you trigger all the tests:

/run-all-tests

You only need to trigger /merge once, and if the CI test fails, you just re-trigger the test that failed and the bot will merge the PR for you after the CI passes.

If you have any questions about the PR merge process, please refer to pr process.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the ti-community-infra/tichi repository.

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added the status/can-merge Indicates a PR has been approved by a committer. label Apr 20, 2023
@SeaRise
Copy link
Contributor

SeaRise commented Apr 20, 2023

/merge cancel

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot removed the status/can-merge Indicates a PR has been approved by a committer. label Apr 20, 2023
@ywqzzy
Copy link
Contributor Author

ywqzzy commented Apr 20, 2023

/merge

@ti-chi-bot
Copy link
Member

@ywqzzy: It seems you want to merge this PR, I will help you trigger all the tests:

/run-all-tests

You only need to trigger /merge once, and if the CI test fails, you just re-trigger the test that failed and the bot will merge the PR for you after the CI passes.

If you have any questions about the PR merge process, please refer to pr process.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the ti-community-infra/tichi repository.

@ti-chi-bot
Copy link
Member

This pull request has been accepted and is ready to merge.

Commit hash: 76956e0

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added the status/can-merge Indicates a PR has been approved by a committer. label Apr 20, 2023
@ywqzzy
Copy link
Contributor Author

ywqzzy commented Apr 20, 2023

/run-unit-tests

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files. status/can-merge Indicates a PR has been approved by a committer. status/LGT2 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 2.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants