Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Subqueries in SET condition of UPDATE statement in presence of foreign keys #15163

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Feb 8, 2024

Conversation

GuptaManan100
Copy link
Member

Description

This PR adds the support requested in #15162.

With the changes in this PR, we support having a subquery in a SET clause of an UPDATE statement even if the column is related by foreign keys.

The changes proposed in the PR, are to use a modified clone statement of UPDATE statement for foreign key planning that has the subquery replaced by an argument, and to do the foreign key planning underneath the subquery containers so that the inner subqueries run first and their results can be used for the remainder of the update planning.

Related Issue(s)

Checklist

  • "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported to release branches
  • If this change is to be back-ported to previous releases, a justification is included in the PR description
  • Tests were added or are not required
  • Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on CI?
  • Documentation was added or is not required

Deployment Notes

Signed-off-by: Manan Gupta <manan@planetscale.com>
Signed-off-by: Manan Gupta <manan@planetscale.com>
@GuptaManan100 GuptaManan100 added Type: Enhancement Logical improvement (somewhere between a bug and feature) Component: Query Serving labels Feb 7, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

vitess-bot bot commented Feb 7, 2024

Review Checklist

Hello reviewers! 👋 Please follow this checklist when reviewing this Pull Request.

General

  • Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
  • Ensure there is a link to an issue (except for internal cleanup and flaky test fixes), new features should have an RFC that documents use cases and test cases.

Tests

  • Bug fixes should have at least one unit or end-to-end test, enhancement and new features should have a sufficient number of tests.

Documentation

  • Apply the release notes (needs details) label if users need to know about this change.
  • New features should be documented.
  • There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.
  • There should be a comment at the top of each new or modified test to explain what the test does.

New flags

  • Is this flag really necessary?
  • Flag names must be clear and intuitive, use dashes (-), and have a clear help text.

If a workflow is added or modified:

  • Each item in Jobs should be named in order to mark it as required.
  • If the workflow needs to be marked as required, the maintainer team must be notified.

Backward compatibility

  • Protobuf changes should be wire-compatible.
  • Changes to _vt tables and RPCs need to be backward compatible.
  • RPC changes should be compatible with vitess-operator
  • If a flag is removed, then it should also be removed from vitess-operator and arewefastyet, if used there.
  • vtctl command output order should be stable and awk-able.

@vitess-bot vitess-bot bot added NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says labels Feb 7, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v20.0.0 milestone Feb 7, 2024
@GuptaManan100 GuptaManan100 removed NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required labels Feb 7, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 7, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (cd40589) 70.60% compared to head (ebb456a) 70.63%.
Report is 12 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #15163      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   70.60%   70.63%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files        1376     1377       +1     
  Lines      182302   182800     +498     
==========================================
+ Hits       128721   129123     +402     
- Misses      53581    53677      +96     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Comment on lines +132 to +141
// updClone is used in foreign key planning to create the selection statements to be used for verification and selection.
// If we encounter subqueries, we want to fix the updClone to use the replaced expression, so that the pulled out subquery's
// result is used everywhere instead of running the subquery multiple times, which is wasteful.
updClone := sqlparser.CloneRefOfUpdate(updStmt)
for idx, updExpr := range updStmt.Exprs {
expr, subqs := sqc.pullOutValueSubqueries(ctx, updExpr.Expr, qt.ID, true)
if len(subqs) == 0 {
expr = updExpr.Expr
} else {
updClone.Exprs[idx].Expr = sqlparser.CloneExpr(expr)
Copy link
Member

@harshit-gangal harshit-gangal Feb 8, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

what about the case when the subquery gets merged with the outer query?
can we have a test for that as well?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We can't merge the subquery with the outer query any more. Because the subquery result has to be shared by the select and the update queries, we cannot run the subquery twice, for the reason that it might return different results.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this ensured that the subquery is not merged with the outer?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

subquery is only merged with outer, if the outer is a Join or a Route. For foreign key planning, it will always either be a FkCascade or FkVerify, so it will never merge it. The merging logic is in pushOrMerge in subquery_planning.

@harshit-gangal harshit-gangal merged commit 91c9f4b into vitessio:main Feb 8, 2024
104 of 105 checks passed
@harshit-gangal harshit-gangal deleted the subquery-for-fk branch February 8, 2024 16:10
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Component: Query Serving Type: Enhancement Logical improvement (somewhere between a bug and feature)
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Feature Request: Subqueries in Update statement having foreign keys enabled
3 participants