planner: don't recompute the hashcode when generated column substitution doesn't happen (#46450)#46629
Conversation
Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <ti-community-prow-bot@tidb.io>
|
This cherry pick PR is for a release branch and has not yet been approved by release team. To merge this cherry pick, it must first be approved by the collaborators. AFTER it has been approved by collaborators, please ping the release team in a comment to request a cherry pick review. DetailsInstructions 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 kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
fixdb
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please fix the merge conflicts.
Signed-off-by: AilinKid <314806019@qq.com>
Signed-off-by: AilinKid <314806019@qq.com>
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: fixdb, qw4990 The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
This cherry pick PR is for a release branch and has not yet been approved by release team. To merge this cherry pick, it must first be approved by the collaborators. AFTER it has been approved by collaborators, please ping the release team in a comment to request a cherry pick review. DetailsInstructions 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 kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
Codecov Report
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## release-6.5 #46629 +/- ##
================================================
Coverage ? 73.8604%
================================================
Files ? 1085
Lines ? 349803
Branches ? 0
================================================
Hits ? 258366
Misses ? 75015
Partials ? 16422 |
This is an automated cherry-pick of #46450
What problem does this PR solve?
Issue Number: close #42788
Problem Summary:
What is changed and how it works?
currently Expression.Hashcode() functionality is only used in some limited comparison cases, so lazy computation is necessary.
Say memory formular for every DNF item is m(?)
from the case above, when computing the hashcode from the raw tree format, additional mem consumption should be allocated since the hashcode cache in every
ORExpression except for basic column hashcode comsumption: (m(a) + m(b) + m(c) + ... m(y) + m(z))additionally, actually we rarely need to compute the hashcode from root node, from the most usage from TiDB expression deduplication cases after flatten DNF expressions, what we only need to do is to output every hashcode for every single flattenDNFItem above, which consuming as just few as
(m(a) + m(b) + m(c) + ... m(y) + m(z))as we said above.Check List
Tests
Side effects
Documentation
Release note
Please refer to Release Notes Language Style Guide to write a quality release note.