The patch actually fixes the old defect of the optimizer that
could not extract keys for range access from IN predicates
with row arguments.
This problem was resolved in the mysql-5.7 code. The patch
supersedes what was done there:
- it can build range access when not all components of
the first row argument are refer to the columns of the table
for which the range access is constructed.
- it can use equality predicates to build range access
to the table that is not referred to in this argument.
Let range optimizer remove parts of OR-clauses for which range analysis
produced SEL_TREE(IMPOSSIBLE).
There is no need to remove parts of AND-clauses: either they are inside
of OR (and the whole AND-clause will be removed), or the AND-clause is
at the top level, in which case the whole WHERE (or ON) is always FALSE
and this is a degenerate case which receives special treatment.
The removal process takes care not to produce 1-way ORs (in that case
we substitute the OR for its remaining member).
Port to mariadb-1.0 the following fix from mysql-5.6:
Revision ID: jorgen.loland@oracle.com-20120314131055-ml54x9deueqfsff4
BUG#13701206: WHERE A>=B DOES NOT GIVE SAME EXECUTION PLAN
AS WHERE B<=A (RANGE OPTIMIZER)
that fix didn't have a public testcase, so I created one.
BNL and BNLH joins pre-filter the records from a joined table via JOIN_TAB::cache_select->cond.
There is no need to re-evaluate the same conditions via JOIN_TAB::select_cond. This patch removes
the duplicated conditions from the top-level conjuncts of each pushed condition.
The added "Using where" in few EXPLAINs is due to taking into account tab->cache_select->cond
in addition to tab->select_cond in JOIN::save_explain_data_intern.
- Modify the way Item_cond::fix_fields() and Item_cond::eval_not_null_tables()
calculate bitmap for Item_cond_or::not_null_tables():
if they see a "... OR inexpensive_const_false_item OR ..." then the item can
be ignored.
- Updated test results. There can be more warnings produced since parts of WHERE
are evaluated more times.
from MariaDB 10.0.
The bug in mdev-3948 was an instance of the problem fixed by Sergey's patch
in 10.0 - namely that the range optimizer could change table->[read | write]_set,
and not restore it.
revno: 3471
committer: Sergey Petrunya <psergey@askmonty.org>
branch nick: 10.0-serg-fix-imerge
timestamp: Sat 2012-11-03 12:24:36 +0400
message:
# MDEV-3817: Wrong result with index_merge+index_merge_intersection, InnoDB table, join, AND and OR conditions
Reconcile the fixes from:
#
# guilhem.bichot@oracle.com-20110805143029-ywrzuz15uzgontr0
# Fix for BUG#12698916 - "JOIN QUERY GIVES WRONG RESULT AT 2ND EXEC. OR
# AFTER FLUSH TABLES [-INT VS NULL]"
#
# guilhem.bichot@oracle.com-20111209150650-tzx3ldzxe1yfwji6
# Fix for BUG#12912171 - ASSERTION FAILED: QUICK->HEAD->READ_SET == SAVE_READ_SET
# and
#
and related fixes from: BUG#1006164, MDEV-376:
Now, ROR-merged QUICK_RANGE_SELECT objects make no assumptions about the values
of table->read_set and table->write_set.
Each QUICK_ROR_SELECT has (and had before) its own column bitmap, but now, all
QUICK_ROR_SELECT's functions that care: reset(), init_ror_merged_scan(), and
get_next() will set table->read_set when invoked and restore it back to what
it was before the call before they return.
This allows to avoid the mess when somebody else modifies table->read_set for
some reason.
The bug happened because in some cases the function JOIN::exec
did not save the value of TABLE::pre_idx_push_select_cond in
TABLE::select->pre_idx_push_select_cond for the sort table.
Noticed and fixed a bug in the function make_cond_remainder
that builds the remainder condition after extraction of an index
pushdown condition from the where condition. The code
erroneously assumed that the function make_cond_for_table left
the value of ICP_COND_USES_INDEX_ONLY in sub-condition markers.
Adjusted many result files from the regression test suite
after this fix .
sql/sql_insert.cc:
CREATE ... IF NOT EXISTS may do nothing, but
it is still not a failure. don't forget to my_ok it.
******
CREATE ... IF NOT EXISTS may do nothing, but
it is still not a failure. don't forget to my_ok it.
sql/sql_table.cc:
small cleanup
******
small cleanup
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.
revno: 2876.47.174
revision-id: jorgen.loland@oracle.com-20110519120355-qn7eprkad9jqwu5j
parent: mayank.prasad@oracle.com-20110518143645-bdxv4udzrmqsjmhq
committer: Jorgen Loland <jorgen.loland@oracle.com>
branch nick: mysql-trunk-11765831
timestamp: Thu 2011-05-19 14:03:55 +0200
message:
BUG#11765831: 'RANGE ACCESS' MAY INCORRECTLY FILTER
AWAY QUALIFYING ROWS
The problem was that the ranges created when OR'ing two
conditions could be incorrect. Without the bugfix,
"I <> 6 OR (I <> 8 AND J = 5)" would create these ranges:
"NULL < I < 6",
"6 <= I <= 6 AND 5 <= J <= 5",
"6 < I < 8",
"8 <= I <= 8 AND 5 <= J <= 5",
"8 < I"
While the correct ranges is
"NULL < I < 6",
"6 <= I <= 6 AND 5 <= J <= 5",
"6 < I"
The problem occurs when key_or() ORs
(1) "NULL < I < 6, 6 <= I <= 6 AND 5 <= J <= 5, 6 < I" with
(2) "8 < I AND 5 <= J <= 5"
The reason for the bug is that in key_or(), SEL_ARG *tmp is
used to point to the range in (1) above that is merged with
(2) while key1 points to the root of the red-black tree of
(1). When merging (1) and (2), tmp refers to the "6 < I"
part whereas the root is the "6 <= ... AND 5 <= J <= 5" part.
key_or() decides that the tmp range needs to be split into
"6 < I < 8, 8 <= I <= 8, 8 < I", in which next_key_part of the
second range should be that of tmp. However, next_key_part is
set to key1->next_key_part ("5 <= J <= 5") instead of
tmp->next_key_part (empty). Fixing this gives the correct but
not optimal ranges:
"NULL < I < 6",
"6 <= I <= 6 AND 5 <= J <= 5",
"6 < I < 8",
"8 <= I <= 8",
"8 < I"
A second problem can be seen above: key_or() may create
adjacent ranges that could be replaced with a single range.
Fixes for this is also included in the patch so that the range
above becomes correct AND optimal:
"NULL < I < 6",
"6 <= I <= 6 AND 5 <= J <= 5",
"6 < I"
Merging adjacent ranges like this gives a slightly lower cost
estimate for the range access.
- Set the default
- Adjust the testcases so that 'new' tests are run with optimizations turned on.
- Pull out relevant tests from "irrelevant" tests and run them with optimizations on.
- Run range.test and innodb.test with both mrr=on and mrr=off
