Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
[fix](nereids)avoid generate Runtime filter whose target is not a base table column - #48804
Merged
Conversation
hello-stephen
commented
Mar 7, 2025
Contributor
Thank you for your contribution to Apache Doris. Please clearly describe your PR:
|
englefly
commented
Mar 7, 2025
ContributorAuthor
run buildall |
16 tasks
doris-robot
commented
Mar 7, 2025
TPC-H: Total hot run time: 32366 ms |
doris-robot
commented
Mar 7, 2025
TPC-DS: Total hot run time: 184336 ms |
doris-robot
commented
Mar 7, 2025
ClickBench: Total hot run time: 30.88 s |
morrySnow
left a comment
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
could u add a test case? maybe a ut is a better way
yiguolei pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 10, 2025
…is not a base table column (#48779) ### What problem does this PR solve? pick #48804 Issue Number: close #xxx Related PR: #xxx Problem Summary: ### Release note None ### Check List (For Author) - Test <!-- At least one of them must be included. --> - [ ] Regression test - [ ] Unit Test - [ ] Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below) - [ ] No need to test or manual test. Explain why: - [ ] This is a refactor/code format and no logic has been changed. - [ ] Previous test can cover this change. - [ ] No code files have been changed. - [ ] Other reason <!-- Add your reason? --> - Behavior changed: - [ ] No. - [ ] Yes. <!-- Explain the behavior change --> - Does this need documentation? - [ ] No. - [ ] Yes. <!-- Add document PR link here. eg: apache/doris-website#1214 --> ### Check List (For Reviewer who merge this PR) - [ ] Confirm the release note - [ ] Confirm test cases - [ ] Confirm document - [ ] Add branch pick label <!-- Add branch pick label that this PR should merge into -->
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
englefly
commented
Mar 13, 2025
ContributorAuthor
run buildall |
1 similar comment
englefly
commented
Mar 13, 2025
ContributorAuthor
run buildall |
englefly
commented
Mar 13, 2025
ContributorAuthor
run buildall |
doris-robot
commented
Mar 13, 2025
TPC-H: Total hot run time: 35435 ms |
morrySnow
previously approved these changes
Mar 13, 2025
Contributor
PR approved by at least one committer and no changes requested. |
englefly
commented
Mar 19, 2025
ContributorAuthor
run buildall |
doris-robot
commented
Mar 19, 2025
TPC-H: Total hot run time: 32517 ms |
doris-robot
commented
Mar 19, 2025
TPC-DS: Total hot run time: 191875 ms |
doris-robot
commented
Mar 19, 2025
ClickBench: Total hot run time: 31.52 s |
englefly
commented
Mar 20, 2025
ContributorAuthor
run buildall |
doris-robot
commented
Mar 20, 2025
TPC-H: Total hot run time: 32508 ms |
doris-robot
commented
Mar 20, 2025
TPC-DS: Total hot run time: 185081 ms |
doris-robot
commented
Mar 20, 2025
ClickBench: Total hot run time: 30.89 s |
starocean999
approved these changes
Mar 20, 2025
Contributor
PR approved by at least one committer and no changes requested. |
LiBinfeng-01
approved these changes
Mar 20, 2025
github-actionsBot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 20, 2025
…e table column (#48804) ### What problem does this PR solve? avoid generate wrong rf for pattern ``` join(#5=#8) --> join(#7=#6) -->project(null as #5, #7) --->scan(t1) -->project(#6) -->scan(T2[#5, #6]) -->scan(T3[#8]) ``` `RF(#8->#5)` should not be generated. but current version, we set RF taget to `T2.#5`
github-actionsBot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 20, 2025
…e table column (#48804) ### What problem does this PR solve? avoid generate wrong rf for pattern ``` join(#5=#8) --> join(#7=#6) -->project(null as #5, #7) --->scan(t1) -->project(#6) -->scan(T2[#5, #6]) -->scan(T3[#8]) ``` `RF(#8->#5)` should not be generated. but current version, we set RF taget to `T2.#5`
englefly added a commit
to englefly/incubator-doris
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 20, 2025
…e table column (apache#48804) ### What problem does this PR solve? avoid generate wrong rf for pattern ``` join(apache#5=apache#8) --> join(apache#7=apache#6) -->project(null as apache#5, apache#7) --->scan(t1) -->project(apache#6) -->scan(T2[apache#5, apache#6]) -->scan(T3[apache#8]) ``` `RF(apache#8->apache#5)` should not be generated. but current version, we set RF taget to `T2.apache#5`
16 tasks
englefly
commented
Apr 27, 2025
ContributorAuthor
pick for branch 2.1 #49314 |
koarz pushed a commit
to koarz/doris
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 4, 2025
…e table column (apache#48804) ### What problem does this PR solve? avoid generate wrong rf for pattern ``` join(apache#5=apache#8) --> join(apache#7=apache#6) -->project(null as apache#5, apache#7) --->scan(t1) -->project(apache#6) -->scan(T2[apache#5, apache#6]) -->scan(T3[apache#8]) ``` `RF(apache#8->apache#5)` should not be generated. but current version, we set RF taget to `T2.apache#5`
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
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
What problem does this PR solve?
avoid generate wrong rf for pattern
RF(#8->#5)should not be generated.but current version, we set RF taget to
T2.#5Issue Number: close #xxx
Related PR: #xxx
Problem Summary:
Release note
None
Check List (For Author)
Test
Behavior changed:
Does this need documentation?
Check List (For Reviewer who merge this PR)