sql: fix the batching behavior of mutation statements, especially with RETURNING by knz · Pull Request #23373 · cockroachdb/cockroach

knz · 2018-03-05T16:50:54Z

Fixes #22304.
Fixes #23156.
Fixes #24928.

To review:

@RaduBerinde for the physical property propagation. Check the order_by test, confirm that this is enables optimizations of DELETE in a WITH clause or [ ... ]
@jordanlewis for overall design of the new batchedPlanNode interface.
@andreimatei @jordanlewis for correctness of the batching behavior (like we discussed - I think this does everything you want)

cockroach-teamcity · 2018-03-05T16:51:03Z

This change is

knz · 2018-03-05T16:52:25Z

I am willing to extend this PR with the two subsequent commits that fix UPDATE and INSERT accordingly; or create separate PRs, as you recommend.

In any case I'd like to start the review with the DELETE changes in here, which show the general idea I want to apply to the other things afterwards.

RaduBerinde · 2018-03-05T20:46:25Z

Phys props stuff LGTM

Review status: 0 of 19 files reviewed at latest revision, all discussions resolved, some commit checks pending.

Comments from Reviewable

andreimatei · 2018-03-06T19:05:52Z

Review status: 0 of 19 files reviewed at latest revision, 4 unresolved discussions, some commit checks failed.

pkg/sql/plan_batch.go, line 23 at r1 (raw file):

)

// batchedPlanNode defines the interface for executing a query

if this extends planNode, then please call this out in the comment.

But I don't really get it - why extend planNode, if Values() is invalid? Also comments like "foo is contractually re-defined here to..." don't really make sense; that's not how interfaces work :). The whole point is that no implementer or derived interface can change any contract (or at least not in ways that can break unsuspecting clients of the interface).

I think we either extend planNode, in which case Values() needs to work and the implementers need to buffer rows, or we don't. You can extract all the planNode methods except Next() and Values() into a planNodeBase that both planNode and batchedPlanNode extend.

pkg/sql/plan_batch.go, line 29 at r1 (raw file):

	// The planNode.Next() method is contractually (re-)defined here to
	// advance a full batch. Its first (boolean) return value is

I think "advance a full batch" here and "the number of rows processed in the last call to Next()" in the comment on BatchedCount don't mean much.

pkg/sql/plan_batch.go, line 33 at r1 (raw file):

	//
	// Additionally, there is no open KV batch (in particular, no
	// uncommitted in-progress KV write operation), nor unchecked or

"uncommitted" is the wrong term to use.

Generally, I don't like this comment very much. It tries to be very general, but I think that a) it will not make much sense to a reader and b) it's too general. It's unclear what "inconsistent" means, it's unclear what "observable" means...
I think we should put more narrow guidance for how writes behave in the face of constraints. Like:

NOTE: Nodes that perform writes and also return rows (e.g. INSERT... RETURNING...) do not return rows before checking foreign key, uniqueness and other CHECK constraints. The implementations execute the KV requests for writing the respective rows (which implicitly checks for some of the constraints) and otherwise perform all other checks before returning a row.

pkg/sql/plan_batch.go, line 51 at r1 (raw file):

var _ batchedPlanNode = &deleteNode{}

// serializeNode serializes the results of a batchedPlanNode into a

nit: I think batchNodeAdapter would be a better name.

Comments from Reviewable

andreimatei · 2018-03-06T19:16:50Z

Review status: 0 of 19 files reviewed at latest revision, 9 unresolved discussions, some commit checks failed.

pkg/sql/delete.go, line 161 at r1 (raw file):

	rowsNeeded rowsNeeded

	// fastPath is computed during startExec.

please also say what this fastPath means

pkg/sql/delete.go, line 178 at r1 (raw file):

// single DELETE batch. This combines with maxDeleteBatchSize below
// to limit the amount of work done in each DELETE batch.
const maxDeleteBatchRowCount = 1000

why do we have both these limits? Would one (either one) do by itself?

pkg/sql/returning.go, line 27 at r1 (raw file):

)

// resultsNeeded determines whether a statement that has a RETURNING

nit: this comment is confusing because it reads as if it was already determined that a RETURNING clause is specified. Say something like "a statement that might have a returning clause"...

pkg/sql/returning.go, line 41 at r1 (raw file):

}

type rowsNeeded bool

nit: my preference is to only use bool enums for input arguments. As far as I see, this rowsNeeded type is only returned or stored, never passed around, so I think it does more harm than good; a bool would be clearer and would lead to shorter ifs.

pkg/sql/returning.go, line 56 at r1 (raw file):

) (planNode, error) {
	// serialize the data-modifying plan to ensure that no data is
	// observed that hasn't been committed/checked first.

"committed" is the wrong word

Comments from Reviewable

knz · 2018-03-07T11:38:45Z

Review status: 0 of 19 files reviewed at latest revision, 9 unresolved discussions.

pkg/sql/delete.go, line 161 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, andreimatei (Andrei Matei) wrote…

please also say what this fastPath means

Done.

pkg/sql/delete.go, line 178 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, andreimatei (Andrei Matei) wrote…

why do we have both these limits? Would one (either one) do by itself?

Yeah I guess just the batch size is important. The row count is constrained by the max batch size anyways. Done.

pkg/sql/plan_batch.go, line 23 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, andreimatei (Andrei Matei) wrote…

if this extends planNode, then please call this out in the comment.

But I don't really get it - why extend planNode, if Values() is invalid? Also comments like "foo is contractually re-defined here to..." don't really make sense; that's not how interfaces work :). The whole point is that no implementer or derived interface can change any contract (or at least not in ways that can break unsuspecting clients of the interface).

I think we either extend planNode, in which case Values() needs to work and the implementers need to buffer rows, or we don't. You can extract all the planNode methods except Next() and Values() into a planNodeBase that both planNode and batchedPlanNode extend.

Yes I fully agree with you on both points.
I have tried to implement this but it makes the patch much more invasive and I dislike this amount of changes so late in the 2.0 release. Consider:

if we keep the base interface called "planNode" used in logical planning, and introduce a new "planNodeRun" that provides Next/Values, I'd need to introduce downcasts from planNode to planNodeRun in all the Next() methods for every planNode implementer.
if we introduce a new interface "planNodeBase" like you suggest, the local execution code stays unchanged but I need to rewrite all the logical planning code to use that instead.

In both cases the change is rather invasive. I will do it on master in a follow-up PR but for this current PR instead I am leaving a TODO and a reference to the new tracking issue #23522.

Also I agree that it is confusing that batchedPlanNode do implement Next() but with a different contract. I have decided to simply make the base method unavailable and instead defined a new BatchedNext().

pkg/sql/plan_batch.go, line 29 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, andreimatei (Andrei Matei) wrote…

I think "advance a full batch" here and "the number of rows processed in the last call to Next()" in the comment on BatchedCount don't mean much.

Yes, agreed. Rephrased.

pkg/sql/plan_batch.go, line 33 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, andreimatei (Andrei Matei) wrote…

"uncommitted" is the wrong term to use.

Generally, I don't like this comment very much. It tries to be very general, but I think that a) it will not make much sense to a reader and b) it's too general. It's unclear what "inconsistent" means, it's unclear what "observable" means...
I think we should put more narrow guidance for how writes behave in the face of constraints. Like:
NOTE: Nodes that perform writes and also return rows (e.g. INSERT... RETURNING...) do not return rows before checking foreign key, uniqueness and other CHECK constraints. The implementations execute the KV requests for writing the respective rows (which implicitly checks for some of the constraints) and otherwise perform all other checks before returning a row.

Thanks for the suggestion. Adopted. I extended it a bit because the reasoning goes further and also includes row counts, not just result rows.

pkg/sql/plan_batch.go, line 51 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, andreimatei (Andrei Matei) wrote…

nit: I think batchNodeAdapter would be a better name.

We have two such adapters (see the code below) - would be nice to distinguish them.
I prefer names that (also) describe what the thing does. "xxxAdapter" doesn't say what xxx is adapted to nor how.

pkg/sql/returning.go, line 27 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, andreimatei (Andrei Matei) wrote…

nit: this comment is confusing because it reads as if it was already determined that a RETURNING clause is specified. Say something like "a statement that might have a returning clause"...

Done

pkg/sql/returning.go, line 41 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, andreimatei (Andrei Matei) wrote…

nit: my preference is to only use bool enums for input arguments. As far as I see, this rowsNeeded type is only returned or stored, never passed around, so I think it does more harm than good; a bool would be clearer and would lead to shorter ifs.

Thanks for the advice. I wasn't sure. Done.

pkg/sql/returning.go, line 56 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, andreimatei (Andrei Matei) wrote…

"committed" is the wrong word

Done.

Comments from Reviewable

andreimatei · 2018-03-07T18:56:52Z

Please run the delete benchmark just in case

Review status: 0 of 19 files reviewed at latest revision, 6 unresolved discussions, some commit checks pending.

pkg/sql/delete.go, line 38 at r2 (raw file):

type deleteNode struct {
	source  planNode
	columns sqlbase.ResultColumns

please put a comment on this columns and say something about RETURNING, since otherwise this field is pretty surprising.

pkg/sql/plan_batch.go, line 23 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, knz (kena) wrote…

Yes I fully agree with you on both points.
I have tried to implement this but it makes the patch much more invasive and I dislike this amount of changes so late in the 2.0 release. Consider:

if we keep the base interface called "planNode" used in logical planning, and introduce a new "planNodeRun" that provides Next/Values, I'd need to introduce downcasts from planNode to planNodeRun in all the Next() methods for every planNode implementer.

if we introduce a new interface "planNodeBase" like you suggest, the local execution code stays unchanged but I need to rewrite all the logical planning code to use that instead.

In both cases the change is rather invasive. I will do it on master in a follow-up PR but for this current PR instead I am leaving a TODO and a reference to the new tracking issue #23522.

Also I agree that it is confusing that batchedPlanNode do implement Next() but with a different contract. I have decided to simply make the base method unavailable and instead defined a new BatchedNext().

cool

pkg/sql/plan_batch.go, line 51 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, knz (kena) wrote…

We have two such adapters (see the code below) - would be nice to distinguish them.

I prefer names that (also) describe what the thing does. "xxxAdapter" doesn't say what xxx is adapted to nor how.

ok

pkg/sql/tablewriter.go, line 737 at r2 (raw file):

}

func (td *tableDeleter) rotateBatch(ctx context.Context) error {

runBatch() ?

Comments from Reviewable

Release note: None

This patch applies the new pattern introduced by DELETE in the previous patch and introduces proper batching behavior for INSERT. Perf difference: ``` name old time/op new time/op delta SQL/Cockroach/Insert/count=1-16 286µs ± 4% 290µs ± 3% ~ (p=0.548 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/Insert/count=10-16 627µs ±22% 628µs ±24% ~ (p=1.000 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/Insert/count=100-16 5.44ms ± 9% 5.75ms ±10% ~ (p=0.310 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/Insert/count=1000-16 60.7ms ± 3% 59.8ms ± 8% ~ (p=0.730 n=4+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertDistinct/count=1-16 3.44ms ±11% 3.62ms ± 3% ~ (p=0.151 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertDistinct/count=10-16 1.25ms ±69% 1.06ms ±42% ~ (p=0.548 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertDistinct/count=100-16 1.53ms ±15% 1.49ms ± 2% ~ (p=0.841 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertFK/count=1/nFks=1-16 492µs ±11% 499µs ±12% ~ (p=0.841 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertFK/count=1/nFks=5-16 689µs ± 5% 680µs ± 3% ~ (p=0.548 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertFK/count=1/nFks=10-16 1.06ms ± 2% 1.08ms ± 6% ~ (p=0.548 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertFK/count=10/nFks=1-16 1.71ms ±11% 1.65ms ± 4% ~ (p=0.690 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertFK/count=10/nFks=5-16 3.84ms ± 2% 3.83ms ± 3% ~ (p=1.000 n=4+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertFK/count=10/nFks=10-16 5.71ms ±16% 5.85ms ±13% ~ (p=0.841 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertFK/count=100/nFks=1-16 11.4ms ±10% 11.0ms ±11% ~ (p=0.548 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertFK/count=100/nFks=5-16 34.2ms ±12% 33.6ms ±14% ~ (p=1.000 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertFK/count=100/nFks=10-16 51.7ms ± 7% 54.6ms ±25% ~ (p=0.690 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertFK/count=1000/nFks=1-16 121ms ± 8% 120ms ± 6% ~ (p=0.841 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertFK/count=1000/nFks=5-16 357ms ±10% 406ms ±38% ~ (p=0.310 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertFK/count=1000/nFks=10-16 603ms ± 9% 610ms ±21% ~ (p=1.000 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertSecondaryIndex/count=1-16 571µs ± 1% 605µs ± 8% ~ (p=0.730 n=4+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertSecondaryIndex/count=10-16 3.63ms ± 8% 3.42ms ±10% ~ (p=0.413 n=4+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertSecondaryIndex/count=100-16 31.5ms ±17% 34.3ms ± 2% ~ (p=0.800 n=3+2) name old alloc/op new alloc/op delta SQL/Cockroach/Insert/count=1-16 39.8kB ± 1% 39.9kB ± 0% ~ (p=0.548 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/Insert/count=10-16 88.7kB ± 0% 88.7kB ± 2% ~ (p=0.690 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/Insert/count=100-16 567kB ± 2% 574kB ± 3% ~ (p=0.222 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/Insert/count=1000-16 5.33MB ± 3% 5.26MB ± 2% ~ (p=0.690 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertDistinct/count=1-16 356kB ± 2% 358kB ± 5% ~ (p=1.000 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertDistinct/count=10-16 366kB ± 5% 363kB ± 1% ~ (p=1.000 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertDistinct/count=100-16 439kB ± 5% 432kB ± 2% ~ (p=1.000 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertFK/count=1/nFks=1-16 57.2kB ± 3% 57.8kB ± 4% ~ (p=0.690 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertFK/count=1/nFks=5-16 126kB ± 2% 125kB ± 4% ~ (p=0.690 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertFK/count=1/nFks=10-16 230kB ± 9% 232kB ±11% ~ (p=1.000 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertFK/count=10/nFks=1-16 327kB ±25% 300kB ±44% ~ (p=0.548 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertFK/count=10/nFks=5-16 1.03MB ±45% 0.97MB ±19% ~ (p=1.000 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertFK/count=10/nFks=10-16 1.92MB ±18% 2.02MB ±31% ~ (p=0.841 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertFK/count=100/nFks=1-16 3.19MB ±37% 2.99MB ±44% ~ (p=0.548 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertFK/count=100/nFks=5-16 14.0MB ±20% 11.8MB ±23% ~ (p=0.151 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertFK/count=100/nFks=10-16 24.9MB ±17% 26.9MB ±27% ~ (p=0.421 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertFK/count=1000/nFks=1-16 55.1MB ±12% 53.3MB ±32% ~ (p=0.841 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertFK/count=1000/nFks=5-16 189MB ± 7% 190MB ± 6% ~ (p=0.841 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertFK/count=1000/nFks=10-16 330MB ± 5% 321MB ± 7% ~ (p=0.222 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertSecondaryIndex/count=1-16 279kB ±16% 290kB ±12% ~ (p=0.841 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertSecondaryIndex/count=10-16 1.69MB ± 6% 1.64MB ± 7% ~ (p=0.548 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertSecondaryIndex/count=100-16 15.9MB ±10% 16.7MB ± 1% ~ (p=0.800 n=3+2) name old allocs/op new allocs/op delta SQL/Cockroach/Insert/count=1-16 311 ± 2% 313 ± 1% ~ (p=0.143 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/Insert/count=10-16 478 ± 7% 474 ± 5% ~ (p=0.730 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/Insert/count=100-16 2.04k ±10% 2.40k ±29% ~ (p=0.421 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/Insert/count=1000-16 22.0k ±45% 18.0k ±22% ~ (p=0.841 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertDistinct/count=1-16 2.09k ±23% 2.03k ±17% ~ (p=1.000 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertDistinct/count=10-16 2.07k ±23% 2.00k ± 2% ~ (p=0.421 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertDistinct/count=100-16 2.58k ± 8% 2.54k ± 3% ~ (p=1.000 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertFK/count=1/nFks=1-16 479 ± 6% 496 ± 3% ~ (p=0.310 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertFK/count=1/nFks=5-16 935 ± 3% 960 ± 6% ~ (p=0.222 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertFK/count=1/nFks=10-16 1.68k ±18% 1.70k ±18% ~ (p=0.841 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertFK/count=10/nFks=1-16 2.83k ±39% 2.67k ±73% ~ (p=0.690 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertFK/count=10/nFks=5-16 8.19k ±72% 7.36k ±29% ~ (p=1.000 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertFK/count=10/nFks=10-16 15.2k ±26% 16.2k ±43% ~ (p=1.000 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertFK/count=100/nFks=1-16 28.7k ±47% 25.9k ±57% ~ (p=0.548 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertFK/count=100/nFks=5-16 126k ±25% 100k ±33% ~ (p=0.151 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertFK/count=100/nFks=10-16 215k ±23% 240k ±35% ~ (p=0.690 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertFK/count=1000/nFks=1-16 554k ±14% 528k ±38% ~ (p=1.000 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertFK/count=1000/nFks=5-16 1.75M ± 9% 1.77M ± 7% ~ (p=0.690 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertFK/count=1000/nFks=10-16 2.85M ± 8% 2.72M ±10% ~ (p=0.222 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertSecondaryIndex/count=1-16 2.49k ±19% 2.63k ±15% ~ (p=0.841 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertSecondaryIndex/count=10-16 14.4k ± 9% 13.9k ± 9% ~ (p=0.421 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/InsertSecondaryIndex/count=100-16 121k ±13% 129k ± 1% ~ (p=0.800 n=3+2) ``` Release note (bug fix): Removed a limitation where `INSERT` would fail if the number of inserted rows was too large. Release note (bug fix): Fixed a bug where `SELECT * FROM [INSERT ... RETURNING ...] LIMIT 1` or `WITH d AS (INSERT ... RETURNING ...) SELECT * FROM d LIMIT 1` would fail to properly update some rows.

Release note: None

…serted Release note: None

This patch applies the new pattern introduced by DELETE in a previous patch and introduces proper batching behavior for UPSERT. Perf difference: ``` name old time/op new time/op delta SQL/Cockroach/Upsert/count=1-16 830µs ±16% 805µs ± 3% ~ (p=1.000 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/Upsert/count=10-16 1.11ms ±12% 1.10ms ± 7% ~ (p=1.000 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/Upsert/count=100-16 4.03ms ±11% 3.95ms ±14% ~ (p=0.690 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/Upsert/count=1000-16 27.8ms ±15% 25.4ms ± 2% ~ (p=0.286 n=5+4) name old alloc/op new alloc/op delta SQL/Cockroach/Upsert/count=1-16 112kB ± 1% 112kB ± 1% ~ (p=0.222 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/Upsert/count=10-16 154kB ± 1% 154kB ± 1% ~ (p=0.690 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/Upsert/count=100-16 710kB ± 1% 708kB ± 1% ~ (p=1.000 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/Upsert/count=1000-16 6.22MB ± 2% 6.23MB ± 2% ~ (p=1.000 n=5+5) name old allocs/op new allocs/op delta SQL/Cockroach/Upsert/count=1-16 988 ± 1% 994 ± 1% ~ (p=0.175 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/Upsert/count=10-16 1.34k ± 2% 1.35k ± 2% ~ (p=0.317 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/Upsert/count=100-16 5.27k ±16% 5.09k ± 9% ~ (p=0.841 n=5+5) SQL/Cockroach/Upsert/count=1000-16 44.4k ±14% 43.8k ±15% ~ (p=1.000 n=5+5) ``` (negligible) This also enables deleting the `returningHelper` and the `editNode` infrastructure, which is not needed any more. Release note (bug fix): Removed a limitation where `UPSERT` would fail if the number of modified rows was too large. Release note (bug fix): `UPSERT` now properly reports the count of modified rows when `RETURNING` is not specified.

Release note: None

This patch introduces the logic test syntax `statement count N` that is like `statement ok` but also checks that the final RowsAffected count is equal to N. It also introduces the relevant DELETE/UPSERT/INSERT/UPDATE tests, which exercise this code path. Release note: None

Prior to this patch, the spool stage if needed would be added just before the mutation stage that requires it. Then a separate condition would remove the spool stage if it was at the top level of a logical plan With the new handling of RETURNING however, this would cause the unfortunate situation where a top level mutation _statement_ with RETURNING would get a spool although it is not needed (reminder: top-level mutations do not need a spool; a spool is only required if there is further processing by a surrounding query) -- this is because RETURNING has been recently modified to be handled by a regular render (projection) stage after the mutation stage, instead of being executed inside the mutation stage itself. So a plan would look like returning - spool - mutation, whereas we'd really like to see returning - mutation directly. This patch solves the problem by introducing two plan transforms that "pull up" a spool: - render - spool is replaced by spool - render - filter - spool is replaced by spool - filter - distinct - spool is replaced by spool - distinct The first one addresses the immediate non-optimal situation with RETURNING that required this patch. The other two are generally-safe, generally-desirable transform that reduce the amount or rows stored inside the spool. Release note (sql change): a minor optimization is introduced that reduces the amount of RAM used when a query performs further computations on the result of a mutation statement (INSERT/DELETE/UPSERT/UPSERT) combined with RETURNING.

knz · 2018-04-21T12:11:57Z

There we go, fixed it.

knz · 2018-04-21T15:14:15Z

Also now with a regression test for the original issue (#22304) that motivated all this work.

As detected in issue cockroachdb#22304, a mutation with RETURNING could let values go through to the client that would violate constraints. This was fixed in a combination of previous patches; this commit adds the corresponding regression test. Release note: None

knz · 2018-04-21T22:03:55Z

bors r+

@RaduBerinde

23373: sql: fix the batching behavior of mutation statements, especially with RETURNING r=knz a=knz Fixes #22304. Fixes #23156. Fixes #24928. To review: - @RaduBerinde for the physical property propagation. Check the order_by test, confirm that this is enables optimizations of DELETE in a WITH clause or [ ... ] - @jordanlewis for overall design of the new `batchedPlanNode` interface. - @andreimatei @jordanlewis for correctness of the batching behavior (like we discussed - I think this does everything you want) Co-authored-by: Raphael 'kena' Poss <knz@cockroachlabs.com>

craig · 2018-04-21T22:24:35Z

Build succeeded

GitHub CI (Cockroach)

andreimatei · 2018-04-23T15:31:51Z

@knz I'm ecstatic to see this merged! Would you mind updating this doc? https://www.cockroachlabs.com/docs/dev/known-limitations.html#write-and-update-limits-for-a-single-statement

knz · 2018-04-23T17:24:47Z

done, thanks!

knz requested review from a team, RaduBerinde, andreimatei and nvb March 5, 2018 16:50

knz changed the title ~~20180305 delete fixups~~ sql: fix the batching behavior of DELETE, especially with RETURNING Mar 5, 2018

knz added the do-not-merge bors won't merge a PR with this label. label Mar 5, 2018

knz force-pushed the 20180305-delete-fixups branch 2 times, most recently from 93853ad to bf938e8 Compare March 5, 2018 20:26

knz removed the do-not-merge bors won't merge a PR with this label. label Mar 5, 2018

knz force-pushed the 20180305-delete-fixups branch 3 times, most recently from b0b2d74 to 799746d Compare March 5, 2018 20:44

knz force-pushed the 20180305-delete-fixups branch 2 times, most recently from 080ec1b to a52a052 Compare March 5, 2018 20:52

knz mentioned this pull request Mar 7, 2018

sql: split planNode into planNode and planNodeRun #23522

Closed

knz force-pushed the 20180305-delete-fixups branch from a52a052 to d289faa Compare March 7, 2018 11:38

knz force-pushed the 20180305-delete-fixups branch 2 times, most recently from 71bf9a2 to 6d3193f Compare March 7, 2018 14:58

knz mentioned this pull request Mar 7, 2018

sql: fix the batching behavior of UPDATE, especially with RETURNING #23527

Closed

knz force-pushed the 20180305-delete-fixups branch from 6d3193f to 78b171e Compare March 7, 2018 18:50

knz force-pushed the 20180305-delete-fixups branch from 78b171e to b34b555 Compare March 7, 2018 19:05

knz added 8 commits April 21, 2018 12:21

sql: move tableUpdater to its own file

6349917

Release note: None

sql: move tableInserter to its own file

e7ae99f

Release note: None

sql: avoid re-allocating a new rowIndexedVarContainer on every row in…

be41292

…serted Release note: None

sql: move tableUpserter and fastTableUpserter to their own files

53ab40f

Release note: None

knz force-pushed the 20180305-delete-fixups branch from dda4234 to 1a2bf91 Compare April 21, 2018 11:35

knz force-pushed the 20180305-delete-fixups branch from 3dc4789 to b7f5000 Compare April 21, 2018 15:15

knz force-pushed the 20180305-delete-fixups branch from b7f5000 to 6dced3e Compare April 21, 2018 21:47

craig bot merged commit 6dced3e into cockroachdb:master Apr 21, 2018

knz mentioned this pull request Apr 23, 2018

Remove a known limitation. cockroachdb/docs#3013

Merged

andreimatei mentioned this pull request Apr 26, 2018

sql: the Insert planNode runs everything in one humongous batch #16180

Closed

knz mentioned this pull request Apr 27, 2018

sql: INSERT ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING returns 1 row affected on conflict #10264

Closed

knz deleted the 20180305-delete-fixups branch April 27, 2018 18:42

This was referenced Apr 27, 2018

sql: INSERT with self-referencing FK check issues #20041

Closed

sql: INSERT ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING reports incorrect number of inserted rows #21155

Closed

This was referenced May 3, 2018

sql: fix the batching behavior of mutation statements, especially with RETURNING cockroachdb/docs#3068

Closed

sql: fix the batching behavior of mutation statements, especially with RETURNING cockroachdb/docs#3075

Closed

knz mentioned this pull request May 15, 2018

sql: can't use the excluding source in INSERT ON CONFLICT RETURNING #25525

Open

knz mentioned this pull request Jun 30, 2018

sql: implement a large mutation row count acceptance test #27086

Closed

Conversation

knz commented Mar 5, 2018 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

cockroach-teamcity commented Mar 5, 2018

Uh oh!

knz commented Mar 5, 2018

Uh oh!

RaduBerinde commented Mar 5, 2018

Uh oh!

andreimatei commented Mar 6, 2018

Uh oh!

andreimatei commented Mar 6, 2018

Uh oh!

knz commented Mar 7, 2018

Uh oh!

andreimatei commented Mar 7, 2018

Uh oh!

knz commented Apr 21, 2018

Uh oh!

knz commented Apr 21, 2018

Uh oh!

knz commented Apr 21, 2018

Uh oh!

craig bot commented Apr 21, 2018

Build succeeded

Uh oh!

andreimatei commented Apr 23, 2018

Uh oh!

knz commented Apr 23, 2018

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

knz commented Mar 5, 2018 •

edited

Loading