-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.2k
fix: re-enable null-equal join dynamic filters with an IS NULL predicate #23106
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
Open
mdashti
wants to merge
6
commits into
apache:main
Choose a base branch
from
paradedb:moe/null-equal-dynamic-filter
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+219
−20
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
e296089
Kept null-aware anti-join NULLs in the pushed dynamic filter.
mdashti f30d9bc
Added a null-aware anti-join dynamic-filter regression test.
mdashti d899f8b
Moved the probe null check ahead of the dynamic filter.
mdashti 26cda37
Reset the SLT knobs and reworded the probe-NULL comments.
mdashti ca5f122
Re-enabled null-equal join dynamic filters via an IS NULL predicate.
mdashti 9620b97
Documented the conservative nullability fallback.
mdashti File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should we widen when we are unable to check column nullability ? i.e. unwrap_or(true).
From what I see this can only happen when on_right and schema are out of sync which seems to be an invalid state ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is a should-never-happen (as you said: keys out of sync with the probe schema), so I kept
unwrap_or(true)as the safe degradation: over-widening only loses a little selectivity, whilefalsecould drop a NULL the join needs. Documented it in9620b97.Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I was thinking how an invalid state if achieved somehow should be handled, instead of silently handling it shouldn't we propagate the error further.
The fail safe check was added here #3238
Though I am not sure what's the consensus for things like these, so a commiter's input would be helpful here.