From issues-return-3480-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@phoenix.apache.org Thu Dec 20 23:07:04 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 37FE6180648 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 23:07:04 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 94503 invoked by uid 500); 20 Dec 2018 22:07:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact issues-help@phoenix.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@phoenix.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list issues@phoenix.apache.org Received: (qmail 94493 invoked by uid 99); 20 Dec 2018 22:07:03 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd4-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 22:07:03 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd4-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd4-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 04F2AC2844 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 22:07:03 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd4-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.501 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.501 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, KAM_ASCII_DIVIDERS=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-eu.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd4-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.11]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bAT-g7XYk9Ax for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 22:07:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org (mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org [209.188.14.139]) by mx1-lw-eu.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-eu.apache.org) with ESMTP id 5291D5F6C6 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 22:07:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jira-lw-us.apache.org (unknown [207.244.88.139]) by mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 802B8E02EB for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 22:07:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jira-lw-us.apache.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jira-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at jira-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTP id 3736123FF5 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 22:07:00 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 22:07:00 +0000 (UTC) From: "Thomas D'Silva (JIRA)" To: issues@phoenix.apache.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: [jira] [Commented] (PHOENIX-4820) Optimize OrderBy for ClientAggregatePlan MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-4820?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16726253#comment-16726253 ] Thomas D'Silva commented on PHOENIX-4820: ----------------------------------------- [~comnetwork] I am not very familiar with the group by/order by code, so pardon my ignorance. I am trying to understand why the {{ order by a.ak3,a.av1}} can be optimized out. The inner query causes the rows to be ordered by {{pk2,pk3}}. For the rows that are returned we are further doing a {{group by a.ak3,a.av1 order by a.ak3,a.av1}} which ends up grouping by {{pk3,v1}} and ordering by {{pk3,v1}}. The group by will cause a single row to be returned for each {{pk3,v1}} but that does not mean the rows will be order by {{pk3,v1}} right? Its not clear to me why the order by can be optimized out? > Optimize OrderBy for ClientAggregatePlan > ---------------------------------------- > > Key: PHOENIX-4820 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-4820 > Project: Phoenix > Issue Type: Improvement > Affects Versions: 4.14.0 > Reporter: chenglei > Assignee: chenglei > Priority: Major > Fix For: 4.15.0 > > Attachments: PHOENIX-4820-4.x-HBase-1.3.patch > > > Given a table > {code} > create table test ( > pk1 varchar not null , > pk2 varchar not null, > pk3 varchar not null, > v1 varchar, > v2 varchar, > CONSTRAINT TEST_PK PRIMARY KEY ( > pk1, > pk2, > pk3 )) > {code} > for following sql : > {code} > select a.ak3 > from (select substr(pk1,1,1) ak1,substr(pk2,1,1) ak2,substr(pk3,1,1) ak3,substr(v1,1,1) av1,substr(v2,1,1) av2 from test order by pk2,pk3 limit 10) a group by a.ak3,a.av1 order by a.ak3,a.av1 > {code} > Intuitively, the above OrderBy statement {{order by a.ak3,a.av1}} should be compiled out because it match the group by statement, but in fact it is not. > The problem is caused by the {{QueryCompiler.compileSingleQuery}} and {{QueryCompiler.compileSingleFlatQuery}},for {{QueryCompiler.compileSingleQuery}} method,because the inner query has order by, so in line 520, local variable {{isInRowKeyOrder}} is false: > {code} > 519 context.setCurrentTable(tableRef); > 520 boolean isInRowKeyOrder = innerPlan.getGroupBy() == GroupBy.EMPTY_GROUP_BY && innerPlan.getOrderBy() == OrderBy.EMPTY_ORDER_BY; > {code} > In {{QueryCompiler.compileSingleFlatQuery}},when {{OrderByCompiler.compile}} method is invoked, the last parameter {{isInRowKeyOrder}} is false: > {code} > 562 OrderBy orderBy = OrderByCompiler.compile(context, select, groupBy, limit, offset, projector, > 563 groupBy == GroupBy.EMPTY_GROUP_BY ? innerPlanTupleProjector : null, isInRowKeyOrder); > {code} > So in following line 156 for {{OrderByCompiler.compile}},even though the {{tracker.isOrderPreserving}} is true, the OrderBy statement could not be compiled out. > {code} > 156 if (isInRowKeyOrder && tracker.isOrderPreserving()) { > {code} > In my opinion, with GroupBy, in following line 563 for {{QueryCompiler.compileSingleFlatQuery}} method, when we call > {{OrderByCompiler.compile}} method, we no need to conside the {{isInRowKeyOrder}}, just like the previous parameter {{tupleProjector}} does. > {code} > 562 OrderBy orderBy = OrderByCompiler.compile(context, select, groupBy, limit, offset, projector, > 563 groupBy == GroupBy.EMPTY_GROUP_BY ? innerPlanTupleProjector : null, isInRowKeyOrder); > {code} -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)