Analysis:
The cause of the bug was the changed meaning of
subselect_partial_match_engine::has_covering_null_row.
Previously it meant that there is row with NULLs in
all nullable fields of the materialized subquery table.
Later it was changed to mean a row with NULLs in all
fields of this table.
At the same time there was a shortcut in
subselect_rowid_merge_engine::partial_match() that
detected a special case where:
- there is no match in any of the columns with NULLs, and
- there is no NULL-only row that covers all columns with
NULLs.
With the change in the meaning of has_covering_null_row,
the condition that detected this special case was incomplete.
This resulted in an incorrect FALSE, when the result was a
partial match.
Solution:
Expand the condition that detected the special case with the
correct test for the existence of a row with NULL values in
all columns that contain NULLs (a kind of parially covering
NULL-row).
of the 5.3 code line after a merge with 5.2 on 2010-10-28
in order not to allow the cost to access a joined table to be equal
to 0 ever.
Expanded data sets for many test cases to get the same execution plans
as before.
Analysis:
In the test query semi-join merges the inner-most subquery
into the outer subquery, and the optimization of the merged
subquery finds some new index access methods. Later the
IN-EXISTS transformation is applied to the unmerged subquery.
Since the optimizer is instructed to not consider
materialization, it reoptimizes the plan in-place to take into
account the new IN-EXISTS conditions. Just before reoptimization
JOIN::choose_subquery_plan resets the query plan, which also
resets the access methods found during the semi-join merge.
Then reoptimization discovers there are no new access methods,
but it leaves the query plan in its reset state. Later semi-join
crashes because it assumes these access methods are present.
Solution:
When reoptimizing in-place, reset the query plan only after new
access methods were discovered. If no new access methods were
discovered, leave the current plan as it was.
Analysis:
The failed assert ensured that the choice of subquery strategy
is performed only for queries with at least one table. If there
is a LIMIT 0 clause all tables are removed, and the subquery is
neither optimized, nor executed during actual optimization. However,
if the query is EXPLAIN-ed, the EXPLAIN execution path doesn't remove
the query tables if there is a LIMIT 0 clause. As a result, the
subquery optimization code is called, which violates the ASSERT
condition.
Solution:
Transform the assert into a condition, and if the outer query
has no tables assume that there will be at most one subquery
execution.
There is potentially a better solution by reengineering the
EXPLAIN/optimize code, so that subquery optimization is not
done if not needed. Such a solution would be a lot bigger and
more complex than a bug fix.
mysql-test/r/subselect4.result:
Moved test case for LP BUG#718593 into the correct test file subselect_mat_cost_bugs.test.
mysql-test/t/subselect4.test:
Moved test case for LP BUG#718593 into the correct test file subselect_mat_cost_bugs.test.
Split the tests for MWL#89 into two parts - one for bugs
(currently active), and one for functionality tets
(currently in progress, and thus disabled).
Disable the test for LP BUG#718593.
