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

static pruning mode gets wrong results #35295

Closed
jackysp opened this issue Jun 10, 2022 · 9 comments · Fixed by #35443
Closed

static pruning mode gets wrong results #35295

jackysp opened this issue Jun 10, 2022 · 9 comments · Fixed by #35443
Assignees
Labels
affects-4.0 This bug affects 4.0.x versions. affects-5.0 This bug affects 5.0.x versions. affects-5.1 This bug affects 5.1.x versions. affects-5.2 This bug affects 5.2.x versions. affects-5.3 This bug affects 5.3.x versions. affects-5.4 This bug affects 5.4.x versions. affects-6.0 affects-6.1 severity/critical sig/planner SIG: Planner type/bug The issue is confirmed as a bug.

Comments

@jackysp
Copy link
Member

jackysp commented Jun 10, 2022

Bug Report

Please answer these questions before submitting your issue. Thanks!

1. Minimal reproduce step (Required)

CREATE TABLE `t100` (
`ID` bigint(20) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`col1` int(10) NOT NULL DEFAULT '0' COMMENT 'test',
`money` bigint(20) NOT NULL COMMENT 'test',
`logtime` datetime NOT NULL COMMENT '记录时间',
PRIMARY KEY (`ID`,`logtime`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8 COLLATE=utf8_bin AUTO_INCREMENT=1 COMMENT='test'
PARTITION BY RANGE COLUMNS(logtime) (
PARTITION `p20220608` VALUES LESS THAN ("20220609"),
PARTITION `p20220609` VALUES LESS THAN ("20220610"),
PARTITION `p20220610` VALUES LESS THAN ("20220611"),
PARTITION `p20220611` VALUES LESS THAN ("20220612"),
PARTITION `p20220612` VALUES LESS THAN ("20220613"),
PARTITION `p20220613` VALUES LESS THAN ("20220614"),
PARTITION `p20220614` VALUES LESS THAN ("20220615"),
PARTITION `p20220615` VALUES LESS THAN ("20220616"),
PARTITION `p20220616` VALUES LESS THAN ("20220617"),
PARTITION `p20220617` VALUES LESS THAN ("20220618"),
PARTITION `p20220618` VALUES LESS THAN ("20220619"),
PARTITION `p20220619` VALUES LESS THAN ("20220620"),
PARTITION `p20220620` VALUES LESS THAN ("20220621"),
PARTITION `p20220621` VALUES LESS THAN ("20220622"),
PARTITION `p20220622` VALUES LESS THAN ("20220623"),
PARTITION `p20220623` VALUES LESS THAN ("20220624"),
PARTITION `p20220624` VALUES LESS THAN ("20220625")
 );

insert into t100(col1,money,logtime) values (100,10,'2022-06-09 00:00:00');

insert into t100(col1,money,logtime) values (100,10,'2022-06-10 00:00:00');

SELECT col1,sum(money) FROM t100 WHERE logtime>='2022-06-09 00:00:00' AND col1=100 ;

2. What did you expect to see? (Required)

mysql> SELECT col1,sum(money) FROM t100 WHERE logtime>='2022-06-09 00:00:00' AND col1=100 ;
+------+------------+
| col1 | sum(money) |
+------+------------+
|  100 |         20 |
+------+------------+

3. What did you see instead (Required)

mysql> SELECT col1,sum(money) FROM t100 WHERE logtime>='2022-06-09 00:00:00' AND col1=100 ;
+------+------------+
| col1 | sum(money) |
+------+------------+
| NULL |         20 |
+------+------------+

Sometimes will get this result. Try more times.

4. What is your TiDB version? (Required)

5d4745e

@jackysp jackysp added the type/bug The issue is confirmed as a bug. label Jun 10, 2022
@jackysp jackysp changed the title static prune mode gets wrong results static pruning mode gets wrong results Jun 10, 2022
@jackysp
Copy link
Member Author

jackysp commented Jun 10, 2022

It will also happen in v4.0. If using the following SQL, bypass the wrong only_full_group_by check.

mysql> SELECT any_value(col1),sum(money) FROM t100 WHERE logtime>='2022-06-09 00:00:00' AND col1=100 ;
+-----------------+------------+
| any_value(col1) | sum(money) |
+-----------------+------------+
|            NULL |         20 |
+-----------------+------------+
1 row in set (0.01 sec)

But if turn the pruning mode to 'dynamic', the bug disappears. I think the refactor of the partition pruning mode fixed this bug.

PTAL @mjonss @qw4990

@mjonss
Copy link
Contributor

mjonss commented Jun 10, 2022

Another workaround seems to be adding group by 1 to the query.

@ChenPeng2013 ChenPeng2013 added severity/critical affects-4.0 This bug affects 4.0.x versions. affects-5.0 This bug affects 5.0.x versions. affects-5.1 This bug affects 5.1.x versions. affects-5.2 This bug affects 5.2.x versions. affects-5.3 This bug affects 5.3.x versions. affects-5.4 This bug affects 5.4.x versions. affects-6.0 affects-6.1 sig/sql-infra SIG: SQL Infra labels Jun 13, 2022
@zimulala
Copy link
Contributor

@mjonss
Do you have time to fix this problem?

@mjonss mjonss self-assigned this Jun 13, 2022
@mjonss
Copy link
Contributor

mjonss commented Jun 13, 2022

@zimulala I will start and see if I can solve it or needs help from the optimizer team.

@XuHuaiyu
Copy link
Contributor

XuHuaiyu commented Jun 14, 2022

@mjonss This is a blocking issue for v5.3.2, we'd better merge the PR for branch release-5.3 ASAP (before Jun. 20th).

@qw4990 qw4990 added the sig/planner SIG: Planner label Jun 14, 2022
@qw4990
Copy link
Contributor

qw4990 commented Jun 14, 2022

@zimulala I will start and see if I can solve it or needs help from the optimizer team.

I guess the cause is that some partitioning StreamAggs return empty or null, and the upper HashAgg cannot handle these results correctly.

image

@tiancaiamao
Copy link
Contributor

@qw4990 You're right.
The tikv StreamAgg is not returning the correct result.
I print out the result of UnionAll.Next() to see what's returned:

mysql> SELECT * FROM t100 WHERE logtime>='2022-06-09 00:00:00' AND col1=100 ;
+----+------+-------+---------------------+
| ID | col1 | money | logtime             |
+----+------+-------+---------------------+
|  1 |  100 |    10 | 2022-06-09 00:00:00 |
|  3 |  100 |    10 | 2022-06-10 00:00:00 |
+----+------+-------+---------------------+
2 rows in set (0.00 sec)

UnionExec.Next() ...
1, 100, 10, 2022-06-09 00:00:00
UnionExec.Next() ...
3, 100, 10, 2022-06-10 00:00:00
mysql> SELECT col1,sum(money) FROM t100 WHERE logtime>='2022-06-09 00:00:00' AND col1=100 ;
+------+------------+
| col1 | sum(money) |
+------+------------+
| NULL |         20 |
+------+------------+
1 row in set (0.01 sec)

UnionExec.Next() ...
NULL, NULL
UnionExec.Next() ...
10, 100
UnionExec.Next() ...
10, 100
UnionExec.Next() ...
NULL, NULL
UnionExec.Next() ...
NULL, NULL
UnionExec.Next() ...
NULL, NULL
UnionExec.Next() ...
NULL, NULL
UnionExec.Next() ...
NULL, NULL
UnionExec.Next() ...
NULL, NULL
UnionExec.Next() ...
NULL, NULL
UnionExec.Next() ...
NULL, NULL
UnionExec.Next() ...
NULL, NULL
UnionExec.Next() ...
NULL, NULL
UnionExec.Next() ...
NULL, NULL
UnionExec.Next() ...
NULL, NULL
UnionExec.Next() ...
NULL, NULL

@tiancaiamao
Copy link
Contributor

The bug is caused by here:

tidb/executor/aggregate.go

Lines 1368 to 1379 in 2de01b4

if e.childResult.NumRows() == 0 {
if !e.isChildReturnEmpty {
err = e.appendResult2Chunk(chk)
} else if e.defaultVal != nil {
chk.Append(e.defaultVal, 0, 1)
}
e.executed = true
return err
}
// Reach here, "e.childrenResults[0].NumRows() > 0" is guaranteed.
e.isChildReturnEmpty = false
e.inputRow = e.inputIter.Begin()

The table reader return empty chunk, however, the stream agg add a default value (null) on line 1372

@zimulala zimulala assigned tiancaiamao and unassigned mjonss Jun 15, 2022
@zimulala zimulala added sig/execution SIG execution and removed sig/sql-infra SIG: SQL Infra labels Jun 15, 2022
@tiancaiamao
Copy link
Contributor

This issue is similiar to #30923
For query select avg(a) from t, when t is an empty table, it returns NULL instead of empty.
We have an internal process for adding the default NULL chunk data.

We should distinguish partial agg and final agg, and add NULL only for the final agg.

ti-chi-bot pushed a commit that referenced this issue Aug 22, 2022
ti-chi-bot pushed a commit that referenced this issue Sep 14, 2022
@zanmato1984 zanmato1984 removed the sig/execution SIG execution label Sep 19, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
affects-4.0 This bug affects 4.0.x versions. affects-5.0 This bug affects 5.0.x versions. affects-5.1 This bug affects 5.1.x versions. affects-5.2 This bug affects 5.2.x versions. affects-5.3 This bug affects 5.3.x versions. affects-5.4 This bug affects 5.4.x versions. affects-6.0 affects-6.1 severity/critical sig/planner SIG: Planner type/bug The issue is confirmed as a bug.
Projects
None yet
8 participants