Please file a JIRA with a unit test case. @Samarth - any insights?
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:36 AM, Chunhui Liu <[email protected]> wrote: > Test with patch for PHOENIX-2319, issue still happened. > > When PHOENIX-2319 was triggered, no index upsert into hbase. > > For this issue, UPSERT seems ok, "SELECT * FROM IDX_T" works fine. > > Thanks, > Chunhui > > 2015-10-15 14:26 GMT+08:00 James Taylor <[email protected]>: > >> Any difference if you apply the patch for PHOENIX-2319? >> Thanks, >> James >> >> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Chunhui Liu <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi team, >>> >>> When I try to use paged query on secondary index, I found a issue. >>> >>> 1. Table has more than 2 primary keys; >>> 2. Table's 1st pk as index's last pk; eg. table's pks are (pk1, pk2, >>> pk3), the failed index's pks are (pk2, pk3, pk1); table's pks are (1, 2, 3, >>> 4), failed index's pks are (2, 3, 4, 5, 1); >>> 3. Use row value constructors on index with another condition that use >>> one pks(not the table's 1st pk); >>> 4. You will get "DEGENERATE SCAN OVER TABLE_NAME" >>> >>> Here is the Test SQL >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> DROP TABLE IF EXISTS T; >>> >>> CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS T ( >>> PK1 VARCHAR not null, >>> PK2 VARCHAR not null, >>> PK3 VARCHAR not null, >>> V1 VARCHAR, >>> CONSTRAINT PK PRIMARY KEY (PK1, PK2, PK3) >>> ); >>> >>> CREATE INDEX IDX_T ON T >>> ( >>> PK2, PK3, PK1 >>> ); >>> >>> UPSERT INTO T VALUES('100', '200', '300', 'V'); >>> UPSERT INTO T VALUES('101', '201', '301', 'V'); >>> UPSERT INTO T VALUES('102', '202', '302', 'V'); >>> UPSERT INTO T VALUES('103', '203', '303', 'V'); >>> UPSERT INTO T VALUES('104', '204', '304', 'V'); >>> >>> SELECT * FROM T; >>> >>> EXPLAIN >>> SELECT PK1, PK2, PK3 FROM T WHERE >>> (PK2, PK3, PK1) >= ('202', '302', '102') >>> AND PK2 < '204' >>> LIMIT 10; >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> I've tried 3 primary key, here is the results. >>> 1. table's pks are (pk1, pk2, pk3); >>> 2. 132 means (pk1, pk3, pk2); >>> >>> | index's pks order | result | >>> | --------------------- | ------------------------------------ | >>> | 132 | correct | >>> | 213 | correct | >>> | 231 | fail | >>> | 312 | correct | >>> | 321 | correct | >>> >>> I've also test this on table with 4, 5 pks >>> | len(pks) | failed order | >>> | --------------------- | ------------------------------------ | >>> | 3 | 231 | >>> | 4 | 2341 | >>> | 5 | 23451 | >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Chunhui >>> >>> >> >
