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

executor: make projection executor unparallel for insert/update/delete (#30290) #30388

Merged
merged 11 commits into from
Jun 16, 2022

Conversation

ti-srebot
Copy link
Contributor

@ti-srebot ti-srebot commented Dec 3, 2021

cherry-pick #30290 to release-5.3
You can switch your code base to this Pull Request by using git-extras:

# In tidb repo:
git pr https://github.com/pingcap/tidb/pull/30388

After apply modifications, you can push your change to this PR via:

git push git@github.com:ti-srebot/tidb.git pr/30388:release-5.3-4fbbd5a77df2

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: close #26832

Problem Summary:

The memdb is not thread-safe, and that's the root cause of issue 26832

What is changed and how it works?

In insert/update/delete statement, do not use the parallel projection, choose the unparallel one intead.

This can avoid the concurrent visit of the memdb in issue 26832.

Check List

Tests

  • Unit test
  • Integration test
  • Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
  • No code

I try to add some unit test code like this and run it with -race flag, but can't reproduce.

+func (s *testSuite8) TestIssues26832DataRace(c *C) {
+       tk := testkit.NewTestKit(c, s.store)
+       tk.MustExec("use test")
+       tk.MustExec("drop table if exists t")
+       tk.MustExec("create table t (a int unique)")
+       tk.MustExec(`CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS order_line (
+               ol_o_id INT NOT NULL,
+               ol_d_id INT NOT NULL,
+               ol_w_id INT NOT NULL,
+               ol_i_id INT NOT NULL,
+               ol_delivery_d INT,
+               PRIMARY KEY(ol_w_id, ol_d_id, ol_o_id)) partition by hash(ol_w_id) partitions 10`)
+       for i:=0; i<1000; i++ {
+               tk.MustExec("insert into order_line value (?, ?, ?, ?, ?)", i, i, i, i, i)
+       }
+
+       for i:=0; i<1000; i++ {
+               v := rand.Intn(1000)
+               tk.MustExec(`UPDATE order_line SET ol_delivery_d = ol_delivery_d + 1 WHERE (ol_w_id, ol_d_id, ol_o_id) IN (
+       (?,?,?),(?,?,?),(?,?,?),(?,?,?),(?,?,?),(?,?,?),(?,?,?),(?,?,?),(?,?,?),(?,?,?))`,
+                       v,v,v,
+                       v,v,v,
+                       v,v,v,
+                       v,v,v,
+                       v,v,v,
+                       v,v,v,
+                       v,v,v,
+                       v,v,v,
+                       v,v,v,
+                       v,v,v)
+       }
+}

and then, I try the TPCC on my local machine, and with no luck ... it doesn't reproduce

tiup bench tpcc --warehouses 10 --parts 10 prepare -T 16 -D bench
tiup bench tpcc --warehouses 10 --parts 10 run -T 16 -D bench

This change is simple enough, so maybe we can merge it first and see whether it reproduce in the future.

Side effects

  • Performance regression: Consumes more CPU
  • Performance regression: Consumes more Memory
  • Breaking backward compatibility

It should not impact the write performance in most cases, because the insert/update/delete is unparalleled
and be the bottleneck, the change of projection does't change this fact.

Documentation

  • Affects user behaviors
  • Contains syntax changes
  • Contains variable changes
  • Contains experimental features
  • Changes MySQL compatibility

Release note

None

Signed-off-by: ti-srebot <ti-srebot@pingcap.com>
@ti-chi-bot
Copy link
Member

ti-chi-bot commented Dec 3, 2021

[REVIEW NOTIFICATION]

This pull request has been approved by:

  • cfzjywxk
  • coocood

To complete the pull request process, please ask the reviewers in the list to review by filling /cc @reviewer in the comment.
After your PR has acquired the required number of LGTMs, you can assign this pull request to the committer in the list by filling /assign @committer in the comment to help you merge this pull request.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Reviewer can indicate their review by submitting an approval review.
Reviewer can cancel approval by submitting a request changes review.

@ti-srebot
Copy link
Contributor Author

/run-all-tests

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed Indicates that a PR should not merge because it's missing one of the release note labels. release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. and removed do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed Indicates that a PR should not merge because it's missing one of the release note labels. labels Dec 3, 2021
@ti-srebot ti-srebot added size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. type/5.3-cherry-pick type/bugfix This PR fixes a bug. labels Dec 3, 2021
@ti-srebot
Copy link
Contributor Author

@tiancaiamao you're already a collaborator in bot's repo.

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added the status/LGT1 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 1. label Dec 16, 2021
@tiancaiamao
Copy link
Contributor

/run-check_dev

@guo-shaoge
Copy link
Collaborator

/run-mysql-test
@tiancaiamao Maybe it's time to merge this pr. A new version is about to release. Thanks!

@tiancaiamao
Copy link
Contributor

PTAL @coocood

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added status/LGT2 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 2. and removed status/LGT1 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 1. labels Feb 23, 2022
@VelocityLight VelocityLight added cherry-pick-approved Cherry pick PR approved by release team. and removed do-not-merge/cherry-pick-not-approved labels Jun 15, 2022
@XuHuaiyu
Copy link
Contributor

/merge

@ti-chi-bot
Copy link
Member

This pull request has been accepted and is ready to merge.

Commit hash: c5c7da8

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added the status/can-merge Indicates a PR has been approved by a committer. label Jun 16, 2022
@sre-bot
Copy link
Contributor

sre-bot commented Jun 16, 2022

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot merged commit 6121832 into pingcap:release-5.3 Jun 16, 2022
@heibaijian heibaijian added this to the v5.3.2 milestone Jun 20, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
cherry-pick-approved Cherry pick PR approved by release team. release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. status/can-merge Indicates a PR has been approved by a committer. status/LGT2 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 2. type/bugfix This PR fixes a bug. type/5.3-cherry-pick
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

10 participants