maria-developers team mailing list archive
-
maria-developers team
-
Mailing list archive
-
Message #04598
Re: Fwd: [Commits] Rev 3335: Fix bug lp:825075 in file:///home/tsk/mprog/src/5.3/
On 02/17/2012 08:00 AM, Sergei Petrunia wrote:
> Hi Timour,
>
> So, we're trying to fix this by making group-by-loose-scan access method be
> able to scan forwards (when evaluating MIN) and/or backwards (if evaluating
> MAX) until it finds a record that satisfies the WHERE condition.
>
> We still need to determine whether we need to do the scan or index jumps are
> sufficient.
>
> == Task definition ==
>
> We're targeting cases where
>
> - the WHERE condition has references to MIN/MAX column
> - the range optimizer has constructed a SEL_ARG graph that refers to the
> MIN/MAX column.
>
> - the index is defined as (ignoring the bound columns):
>
> INDEX( group_by_columns, min_max_column)
>
>
> and the range optimizer has constructed a SEL_TREE in form:
>
> range_tree(group_by_columns) ---> range_tree1(min_max_column)
> | |
> | \---------> range_tree2(min_max_column)
> |
> | ... ....
> |
> \-------------------> range_treeN(min_max_column)
>
> (the edges in the picture a SEL_ARG::next_key_part edges)
>
> When the query executed, loose scan walks the index forward:
> - it gets to some value group of {group_by_columns}
> - Within that group, we jump to the first (or to the last) index record
> that matches SEL_ARG(min_max).
>
> The question:
>
> when can we guarantee that the first index record will
> match the WHERE condition (PROB1)
>
> ?
>
> == Proposed resolution ==
>
> (PROB1) is true, when the WHERE condition is equivalent to
>
> "cond1 AND cond2"
>
> where
> cond1 - does not use min_max_column at all.
> cond2 - is an AND/OR tree with leaves in form "min_max_column $CMP$ const".
BETWEEN, IN, IS [NOT] NULL predicates are also ok here.
Hidden type conversions should be taken into account.
Regards,
Igor.
>
>
> I think the above is a sound solution. Please let me know if it is not.
> BR
> Sergei
References