yujun777 commented on code in PR #68646:
URL: https://github.com/apache/doris/pull/68646#discussion_r4214180204
##########
fe/fe-core/src/main/java/org/apache/doris/mtmv/MTMVRelationManager.java:
##########
@@ -349,34 +358,182 @@ public void dropTable(Table table) {
// because a dropped table is the one change whose query is gone
beyond doubt. What the two record
// is the same state either way. Unlike a rename it stays an
invalidation: the table is gone for
// good, so the state is not something a later alter can make obsolete.
- processBaseTableChange(new BaseTableInfo(table), "The base table has
been deleted:", false);
+ processBaseTableChange(new BaseTableInfo(table), "The base table has
been deleted:", null);
}
/**
* update mtmv status to `SCHEMA_CHANGE`.
*
* @param isReplace
+ * @param queryJudgedColumns the names the alter gives the table or takes
away from it, which leave the
+ * judgement about each MV's state to that MV's
own query, or null when the
+ * alter is not one a query decides. The names
are carried rather than judged
+ * before the call because the judgement is
about them; see
+ * {@code AlterOp#queryJudgedColumnNames} for
which operations name one, and
+ * {@link #invalidateMvUnlessQueryHolds} for
what is asked about it. A rename
+ * of the base table names no column: it is left
to the record below, which
+ * says what the MV that keeps spelling the old
name needs to hear
*/
@Override
- public void alterTable(BaseTableInfo oldTableInfo, Optional<BaseTableInfo>
newTableInfo, boolean isReplace) {
+ public void alterTable(BaseTableInfo oldTableInfo, Optional<BaseTableInfo>
newTableInfo, boolean isReplace,
+ QueryJudgedChange queryJudgedChange) {
// when replace, need deal two table
if (isReplace) {
// REPLACE TABLE already invalidates the IVM baseline explicitly,
see Alter#processReplaceTable
- processBaseTableChange(newTableInfo.get(), "The base table has
been updated:", false);
+ processBaseTableChange(newTableInfo.get(), "The base table has
been updated:", null);
}
- boolean renamed = !isReplace && newTableInfo.isPresent()
- && !Objects.equals(oldTableInfo.getTableName(),
newTableInfo.get().getTableName());
- // A rename is the one change whose query check is skipped: the MV
query keeps spelling the old
- // name, so it is unanalyzable by construction, and the reason it
would be invalidated with --
- // "the query is no longer analyzable" -- says less than the message
this call records anyway.
- boolean checkQueryUsable = !renamed;
- processBaseTableChange(oldTableInfo, "The base table has been
updated:", checkQueryUsable);
+ processBaseTableChange(oldTableInfo, "The base table has been
updated:", queryJudgedChange);
}
/**
- * An MV's query is only as good as the base table schema it was analyzed
against. Re-analyzing the
- * MV query here (right after the alter was applied) is what detects a
changed column identity:
+ * Whether the query, as it is analysed now, reads a column of any of
these names, and reads it where
+ * the change can reach it.
+ *
+ * <p>There are two places a name is the change's to answer for. One is a
column of the table the change
+ * is about: that is the column this view's rows were computed from, and
the names are matched
+ * case-insensitively because a name is what moves. The other is a column
the query reaches across a
+ * scope boundary -- the plan records those on the Apply that stands for
the subquery, whose correlation
+ * slots are the outer columns its right side reads -- because such a name
is the scopes' to answer for
+ * rather than the query's: the nearest column to the reference answers
for it, so a column the change
+ * takes away from a scope inside leaves the name to one outside, and a
column it gives to a scope inside
+ * takes the name over. A name reached with the qualifier of another table
inside the query's own scope
+ * is neither: no later change can move it, so one to a column it does not
name is one this view's rows
+ * do not depend on.
+ */
+ private static boolean reachesAnyColumnOf(Plan plan, BaseTableInfo
baseTableInfo, Set<String> columnNames) {
+ if (plan == null) {
+ // A query whose plan was not kept is one this cannot be answered
about, and "it does" is the
+ // answer that keeps the view safe.
+ return true;
+ }
+ Set<String> names = Sets.newTreeSet(String.CASE_INSENSITIVE_ORDER);
+ names.addAll(columnNames);
+ LineageInfo lineage = LineageInfoExtractor.extractLineageInfo(plan);
+ for (SetMultimap<?, Expression> byType :
lineage.getDirectLineageMap().values()) {
+ if (reachesAnyColumn(byType.values(), names, baseTableInfo)) {
+ return true;
+ }
+ }
+ // The dataset predicates once, not once per output column: the
per-output copy of them the lineage
+ // also offers holds the same expressions for every column the query
produces, and scanning it would
+ // visit each of them once per column.
+ if (reachesAnyColumn(lineage.getDatasetIndirectLineageMap().values(),
names, baseTableInfo)) {
+ return true;
+ }
+ if (reachesAnyColumnOfASubquery(plan, names, baseTableInfo)) {
+ return true;
+ }
+ return reachesAnyColumnAcrossScopes(plan, lineage, names,
baseTableInfo);
+ }
+
+ /** Whether this slot is a column of this table, through whatever views
stand between the two. */
+ private static boolean isColumnOf(Slot slot, BaseTableInfo baseTableInfo) {
+ if (!(slot instanceof SlotReference)) {
+ return false;
+ }
+ return ((SlotReference) slot).getOriginalTable()
+ .map(table -> new BaseTableInfo(table).equals(baseTableInfo))
+ .orElse(false);
+ }
+
+ /**
+ * Whether a name the change is about is answered for inside a subquery,
out of that subquery's own
+ * scope.
+ *
+ * <p>This is the one place a name can move without any column the view
produces depending on it: the
+ * scope of a subquery is internal, so which column answers for a name
there changes what the query
+ * returns -- a row, or none -- while every column of the view stays the
one it was. The lineage of the
+ * view's columns does not reach it, so the scope the subquery became is
read here, expression by
+ * expression, the way the lineage is read for the view's own.
+ *
+ * <p>Two things are read. One is a value the subquery itself names -- an
expression of its own under one
+ * of these names, rather than a column of a table -- because that is what
a name the change takes away
+ * falls back to, and it decides the rows whether the subquery is a
predicate or a value. The other is a
+ * column of the table the change is about, which decides the rows only
when the subquery's output is
+ * one the query reads: an EXISTS tests the rows of its subquery and not
what it projects, so a name it
+ * projects and never compares is one this view's rows do not depend on.
+ */
+ private static boolean reachesAnyColumnOfASubquery(Plan plan, Set<String>
names,
+ BaseTableInfo baseTableInfo) {
+ for (LogicalApply<?, ?> apply :
plan.<LogicalApply>collectToList(LogicalApply.class::isInstance)) {
+ boolean outputDecidesRows = !((LogicalApply<?, ?>)
apply).isExist();
+ for (Plan node :
apply.right().<Plan>collectToList(Plan.class::isInstance)) {
+ for (Expression expression : node.getExpressions()) {
+ if (readsAnyNameTheSubqueryAnswersFor(expression, names)
Review Comment:
Fixed in 45a1894dfe4, and pinned as `sibling_*` in the drop suite and in
`IvmBaselineRebuildTest`.
You are right about why the second scope was read: a name only falls back to
a value the subquery names itself where the scope that used to answer for it is
that subquery's own -- an unqualified reference resolves within its own scope,
aliases included, before any enclosing one -- so a scope that never read the
changed table holds nothing for the name, and one of its own is a name the
change never moved.
The scope an Apply stands for is now collected on its own (its right side,
with the right side of every subquery nested in it left out), and a name the
subquery answers for itself is held against the change only where that scope
reads the table the change is about. Measured on the shape in the comment: the
MV stays NORMAL and holds the same row the query returns, where before the
change it was SCHEMA_CHANGE with its rewrite snapshot dropped. Reverting that
half leaves the `sibling_state` case failing with `Expect NORMAL / real
SCHEMA_CHANGE`, so the case is pinned on the half it covers.
##########
fe/fe-core/src/main/java/org/apache/doris/mtmv/MTMVRelationManager.java:
##########
@@ -349,34 +358,182 @@ public void dropTable(Table table) {
// because a dropped table is the one change whose query is gone
beyond doubt. What the two record
// is the same state either way. Unlike a rename it stays an
invalidation: the table is gone for
// good, so the state is not something a later alter can make obsolete.
- processBaseTableChange(new BaseTableInfo(table), "The base table has
been deleted:", false);
+ processBaseTableChange(new BaseTableInfo(table), "The base table has
been deleted:", null);
}
/**
* update mtmv status to `SCHEMA_CHANGE`.
*
* @param isReplace
+ * @param queryJudgedColumns the names the alter gives the table or takes
away from it, which leave the
+ * judgement about each MV's state to that MV's
own query, or null when the
+ * alter is not one a query decides. The names
are carried rather than judged
+ * before the call because the judgement is
about them; see
+ * {@code AlterOp#queryJudgedColumnNames} for
which operations name one, and
+ * {@link #invalidateMvUnlessQueryHolds} for
what is asked about it. A rename
+ * of the base table names no column: it is left
to the record below, which
+ * says what the MV that keeps spelling the old
name needs to hear
*/
@Override
- public void alterTable(BaseTableInfo oldTableInfo, Optional<BaseTableInfo>
newTableInfo, boolean isReplace) {
+ public void alterTable(BaseTableInfo oldTableInfo, Optional<BaseTableInfo>
newTableInfo, boolean isReplace,
+ QueryJudgedChange queryJudgedChange) {
// when replace, need deal two table
if (isReplace) {
// REPLACE TABLE already invalidates the IVM baseline explicitly,
see Alter#processReplaceTable
- processBaseTableChange(newTableInfo.get(), "The base table has
been updated:", false);
+ processBaseTableChange(newTableInfo.get(), "The base table has
been updated:", null);
}
- boolean renamed = !isReplace && newTableInfo.isPresent()
- && !Objects.equals(oldTableInfo.getTableName(),
newTableInfo.get().getTableName());
- // A rename is the one change whose query check is skipped: the MV
query keeps spelling the old
- // name, so it is unanalyzable by construction, and the reason it
would be invalidated with --
- // "the query is no longer analyzable" -- says less than the message
this call records anyway.
- boolean checkQueryUsable = !renamed;
- processBaseTableChange(oldTableInfo, "The base table has been
updated:", checkQueryUsable);
+ processBaseTableChange(oldTableInfo, "The base table has been
updated:", queryJudgedChange);
}
/**
- * An MV's query is only as good as the base table schema it was analyzed
against. Re-analyzing the
- * MV query here (right after the alter was applied) is what detects a
changed column identity:
+ * Whether the query, as it is analysed now, reads a column of any of
these names, and reads it where
+ * the change can reach it.
+ *
+ * <p>There are two places a name is the change's to answer for. One is a
column of the table the change
+ * is about: that is the column this view's rows were computed from, and
the names are matched
+ * case-insensitively because a name is what moves. The other is a column
the query reaches across a
+ * scope boundary -- the plan records those on the Apply that stands for
the subquery, whose correlation
+ * slots are the outer columns its right side reads -- because such a name
is the scopes' to answer for
+ * rather than the query's: the nearest column to the reference answers
for it, so a column the change
+ * takes away from a scope inside leaves the name to one outside, and a
column it gives to a scope inside
+ * takes the name over. A name reached with the qualifier of another table
inside the query's own scope
+ * is neither: no later change can move it, so one to a column it does not
name is one this view's rows
+ * do not depend on.
+ */
+ private static boolean reachesAnyColumnOf(Plan plan, BaseTableInfo
baseTableInfo, Set<String> columnNames) {
+ if (plan == null) {
+ // A query whose plan was not kept is one this cannot be answered
about, and "it does" is the
+ // answer that keeps the view safe.
+ return true;
+ }
+ Set<String> names = Sets.newTreeSet(String.CASE_INSENSITIVE_ORDER);
+ names.addAll(columnNames);
+ LineageInfo lineage = LineageInfoExtractor.extractLineageInfo(plan);
+ for (SetMultimap<?, Expression> byType :
lineage.getDirectLineageMap().values()) {
+ if (reachesAnyColumn(byType.values(), names, baseTableInfo)) {
+ return true;
+ }
+ }
+ // The dataset predicates once, not once per output column: the
per-output copy of them the lineage
+ // also offers holds the same expressions for every column the query
produces, and scanning it would
+ // visit each of them once per column.
+ if (reachesAnyColumn(lineage.getDatasetIndirectLineageMap().values(),
names, baseTableInfo)) {
+ return true;
+ }
+ if (reachesAnyColumnOfASubquery(plan, names, baseTableInfo)) {
+ return true;
+ }
+ return reachesAnyColumnAcrossScopes(plan, lineage, names,
baseTableInfo);
+ }
+
+ /** Whether this slot is a column of this table, through whatever views
stand between the two. */
+ private static boolean isColumnOf(Slot slot, BaseTableInfo baseTableInfo) {
+ if (!(slot instanceof SlotReference)) {
+ return false;
+ }
+ return ((SlotReference) slot).getOriginalTable()
+ .map(table -> new BaseTableInfo(table).equals(baseTableInfo))
+ .orElse(false);
+ }
+
+ /**
+ * Whether a name the change is about is answered for inside a subquery,
out of that subquery's own
+ * scope.
+ *
+ * <p>This is the one place a name can move without any column the view
produces depending on it: the
+ * scope of a subquery is internal, so which column answers for a name
there changes what the query
+ * returns -- a row, or none -- while every column of the view stays the
one it was. The lineage of the
+ * view's columns does not reach it, so the scope the subquery became is
read here, expression by
+ * expression, the way the lineage is read for the view's own.
+ *
+ * <p>Two things are read. One is a value the subquery itself names -- an
expression of its own under one
+ * of these names, rather than a column of a table -- because that is what
a name the change takes away
+ * falls back to, and it decides the rows whether the subquery is a
predicate or a value. The other is a
+ * column of the table the change is about, which decides the rows only
when the subquery's output is
+ * one the query reads: an EXISTS tests the rows of its subquery and not
what it projects, so a name it
+ * projects and never compares is one this view's rows do not depend on.
+ */
+ private static boolean reachesAnyColumnOfASubquery(Plan plan, Set<String>
names,
+ BaseTableInfo baseTableInfo) {
+ for (LogicalApply<?, ?> apply :
plan.<LogicalApply>collectToList(LogicalApply.class::isInstance)) {
+ boolean outputDecidesRows = !((LogicalApply<?, ?>)
apply).isExist();
+ for (Plan node :
apply.right().<Plan>collectToList(Plan.class::isInstance)) {
+ for (Expression expression : node.getExpressions()) {
+ if (readsAnyNameTheSubqueryAnswersFor(expression, names)
+ || (outputDecidesRows &&
reachesAnyColumn(expression, names, baseTableInfo))) {
Review Comment:
Fixed in 45a1894dfe4, and pinned as `nested_*` in the drop suite and in
`IvmBaselineRebuildTest`.
Each scope is read on its own now: collecting the scope an Apply stands for
stops at a nested Apply, whose own right side is judged where that Apply is
read, with its own output being read or not. So the IN around it no longer
reads the projection of the EXISTS inside it, while the EXISTS still answers
for what its own scope reads -- the dataset predicates of the enclosing query
are read as before, which is what keeps a filter inside a subquery from being
skipped.
Measured on the shape in the comment: after the light `ADD COLUMN
inner_t.spare` the MV stays NORMAL holding the row the query returns, where
before it was invalidated for a projection nothing compares. Reverting the
traversal leaves the `nested_state` case failing with `Expect NORMAL / real
SCHEMA_CHANGE`.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
