explain: fix overflow when printing estimated row count #118970
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Previously, when the optimizer estimated a very large row count (which is float64), we would first cast it to uint64 (which would work ok in case the count is large - we'd get `max int64 + 1`), and then we would cast it to int64 which can result in a negative number. This is now fixed by adding a check before casting to int64 to cap the value at max int64. Epic: None Release note: None
|
This change is |
DrewKimball
approved these changes
Feb 8, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewed 2 of 2 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status:complete! 1 of 0 LGTMs obtained (waiting on @mgartner)
|
TFTR! bors r+ |
|
Build succeeded: |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Previously, when the optimizer estimated a very large row count (which is float64), we would first cast it to uint64 (which would work ok in case the count is large - we'd get
max int64 + 1), and then we would cast it to int64 which can result in a negative number. This is now fixed by adding a check before casting to int64 to cap the value at max int64.Epic: None
Release note: None