yujun777 commented on code in PR #68646:
URL: https://github.com/apache/doris/pull/68646#discussion_r4214806441
##########
fe/fe-core/src/main/java/org/apache/doris/mtmv/MTMVRelationManager.java:
##########
@@ -349,34 +360,221 @@ 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);
Review Comment:
Fixed in 5dcbddd3e14, and pinned as `qualify_*` in the drop suite and in
`IvmBaselineRebuildTest`.
Your reading of the mechanism is right, and the stored definition says it
outright: before the change `SHOW CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW` returns `...
qualify flag = 1 and rn = 1` while the very same statement's window clause is
already qualified (`order by internal.db.t.id`), because `PlanSlotFinder` has a
visitor for every clause but `LogicalQualify`. That clause now goes through the
same slot rewrite, so the definition reads `qualify internal.db.t.flag = 1 and
rn = 1`.
Measured end to end on the shape in the comment: after the light `DROP
COLUMN flag` the query returns `(1,1)` while the MV stays NORMAL holding no
rows; with the change the MV is invalidated, because the definition now names
the dropped column and the re-analysis refuses it. Reverting the visitor leaves
the case failing with `Expect cell is: SCHEMA_CHANGE / But real is: NORMAL`.
One measurement that bears on the severity, since it is not what the comment
assumes: a view whose query has a `QUALIFY` is not rewritten today at all --
`EXPLAIN` reports `View struct info is invalid` for it, where the same query
without the `QUALIFY` is chosen. So this shape does not currently surface as a
query served from stale rows; what it leaves is a view in NORMAL whose contents
contradict its own re-analysed definition, for anyone reading the view
directly, for a view built on it, and for the day the rewrite handles `QUALIFY`.
And one thing this does not cover, said rather than left implied: it fixes
the definition a view is created with, so views created before it keep the
unqualified `QUALIFY` in the catalog and remain exposed. Covering those means
either re-qualifying the stored definition or holding the change against
`QUALIFY` references in the check itself, which is the same binding question
the other threads here are about.
--
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]
