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

[Enhancement] support push down agg distinct limit (backport #55455) #55485

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

mergify[bot]
Copy link
Contributor

@mergify mergify bot commented Jan 27, 2025

Why I'm doing:

select distinct upper(lo_orderkey),lo_linenumber from lineorder limit 10;
CPU mem
baseline 30.70 sec 45.454G
patched 21ms 12.430 MB

What I'm doing:

In this patch, we support pushing the distinct limit down to the streaming agg.
The streaming agg will force a preagg pattern for the pushed limit. (Otherwise the limit may lead to undesired results, e.g., a duplicate value in the streaming section reaches the limit limit).

What type of PR is this:

  • BugFix
  • Feature
  • Enhancement
  • Refactor
  • UT
  • Doc
  • Tool

Does this PR entail a change in behavior?

  • Yes, this PR will result in a change in behavior.
  • No, this PR will not result in a change in behavior.

If yes, please specify the type of change:

  • Interface/UI changes: syntax, type conversion, expression evaluation, display information
  • Parameter changes: default values, similar parameters but with different default values
  • Policy changes: use new policy to replace old one, functionality automatically enabled
  • Feature removed
  • Miscellaneous: upgrade & downgrade compatibility, etc.

Checklist:

  • I have added test cases for my bug fix or my new feature
  • This pr needs user documentation (for new or modified features or behaviors)
    • I have added documentation for my new feature or new function
  • This is a backport pr

Bugfix cherry-pick branch check:

Why I'm doing:

select distinct upper(lo_orderkey),lo_linenumber from lineorder limit 10;
CPU mem
baseline 30.70 sec 45.454G
patched 21ms 12.430 MB

What I'm doing:

In this patch, we support pushing the distinct limit down to the streaming agg.
The streaming agg will force a preagg pattern for the pushed limit. (Otherwise the limit may lead to undesired results, e.g., a duplicate value in the streaming section reaches the limit limit).

What type of PR is this:

  • BugFix
  • Feature
  • Enhancement
  • Refactor
  • UT
  • Doc
  • Tool

Does this PR entail a change in behavior?

  • Yes, this PR will result in a change in behavior.
  • No, this PR will not result in a change in behavior.

If yes, please specify the type of change:

  • Interface/UI changes: syntax, type conversion, expression evaluation, display information
  • Parameter changes: default values, similar parameters but with different default values
  • Policy changes: use new policy to replace old one, functionality automatically enabled
  • Feature removed
  • Miscellaneous: upgrade & downgrade compatibility, etc.

Checklist:

  • I have added test cases for my bug fix or my new feature
  • This pr needs user documentation (for new or modified features or behaviors)
    • I have added documentation for my new feature or new function
  • This is a backport pr

Signed-off-by: stdpain <[email protected]>
(cherry picked from commit 4f45265)

# Conflicts:
#	be/src/exec/aggregate/agg_hash_set.h
#	be/src/exec/aggregate/agg_hash_variant.cpp
#	be/src/exec/aggregate/agg_hash_variant.h
#	be/src/exec/aggregate/aggregate_blocking_node.cpp
#	be/src/exec/pipeline/aggregate/aggregate_blocking_sink_operator.h
#	be/src/exec/pipeline/aggregate/aggregate_distinct_streaming_sink_operator.cpp
#	be/src/exec/pipeline/aggregate/aggregate_distinct_streaming_sink_operator.h
#	be/src/exec/pipeline/aggregate/spillable_aggregate_blocking_sink_operator.cpp
#	fe/fe-core/src/main/java/com/starrocks/qe/SessionVariable.java
#	fe/fe-core/src/main/java/com/starrocks/sql/optimizer/rule/transformation/SplitTwoPhaseAggRule.java
#	fe/fe-core/src/test/java/com/starrocks/sql/plan/AggregateTest.java
@mergify mergify bot added the conflicts label Jan 27, 2025
Copy link
Contributor Author

mergify bot commented Jan 27, 2025

Cherry-pick of 4f45265 has failed:

On branch mergify/bp/branch-3.0/pr-55455
Your branch is up to date with 'origin/branch-3.0'.

You are currently cherry-picking commit 4f452658be.
  (fix conflicts and run "git cherry-pick --continue")
  (use "git cherry-pick --skip" to skip this patch)
  (use "git cherry-pick --abort" to cancel the cherry-pick operation)

Changes to be committed:
	modified:   fe/fe-core/src/main/java/com/starrocks/sql/plan/PlanFragmentBuilder.java

Unmerged paths:
  (use "git add/rm <file>..." as appropriate to mark resolution)
	both modified:   be/src/exec/aggregate/agg_hash_set.h
	both modified:   be/src/exec/aggregate/agg_hash_variant.cpp
	both modified:   be/src/exec/aggregate/agg_hash_variant.h
	both modified:   be/src/exec/aggregate/aggregate_blocking_node.cpp
	both modified:   be/src/exec/pipeline/aggregate/aggregate_blocking_sink_operator.h
	both modified:   be/src/exec/pipeline/aggregate/aggregate_distinct_streaming_sink_operator.cpp
	both modified:   be/src/exec/pipeline/aggregate/aggregate_distinct_streaming_sink_operator.h
	both modified:   be/src/exec/pipeline/aggregate/spillable_aggregate_blocking_sink_operator.cpp
	both modified:   fe/fe-core/src/main/java/com/starrocks/qe/SessionVariable.java
	deleted by us:   fe/fe-core/src/main/java/com/starrocks/sql/optimizer/rule/transformation/SplitTwoPhaseAggRule.java
	both modified:   fe/fe-core/src/test/java/com/starrocks/sql/plan/AggregateTest.java

To fix up this pull request, you can check it out locally. See documentation: https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-pull-requests/reviewing-changes-in-pull-requests/checking-out-pull-requests-locally

@wanpengfei-git wanpengfei-git enabled auto-merge (squash) January 27, 2025 02:03
@mergify mergify bot closed this Jan 27, 2025
auto-merge was automatically disabled January 27, 2025 02:03

Pull request was closed

Copy link
Contributor Author

mergify bot commented Jan 27, 2025

@mergify[bot]: Backport conflict, please reslove the conflict and resubmit the pr

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant