[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-2194?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

James Taylor updated PHOENIX-2194:
----------------------------------
    Attachment: PHOENIX-2194_v6.patch

Formatted for pre-checkin

> order by should not require all PK fields with = constraint
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: PHOENIX-2194
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-2194
>             Project: Phoenix
>          Issue Type: Bug
>    Affects Versions: 4.5.0
>         Environment: linux
>            Reporter: Gary Horen
>              Labels: AtMention, SFDC
>         Attachments: PHOENIX-2194-tests.patch, PHOENIX-2194-tests2.patch, 
> PHOENIX-2194.patch, PHOENIX-2194_v2.patch, PHOENIX-2194_v3.patch, 
> PHOENIX-2194_v4.patch, PHOENIX-2194_v5.patch, PHOENIX-2194_v6.patch
>
>
> Here is a table:
> CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS FEEDS.STUFF
> (
>     STUFF CHAR(15) NOT NULL,
>     NONSENSE CHAR(15) NOT NULL
>     CONSTRAINT PK PRIMARY KEY
>     (
>         STUFF,
>         NONSENSE
>     
>     )
> ) VERSIONS=1,MULTI_TENANT=TRUE,REPLICATION_SCOPE=1
> Here is a query:
> explain SELECT * FROM feeds.stuff
> where stuff = ' '
> and nonsense > ' '
> order by nonsense
> Here is the plan:
> CLIENT 1-CHUNK PARALLEL 1-WAY RANGE SCAN  
>     SERVER FILTER BY FIRST KEY ONLY       
>     SERVER TOP 100 ROWS SORTED BY [NONSE  
> CLIENT MERGE SORT   
> If I change to ORDER BY STUFF, NONSENSE I get:
> CLIENT 1-CHUNK SERIAL 1-WAY RANGE SCAN O  
>     SERVER FILTER BY FIRST KEY ONLY AND   
>     SERVER 100 ROW LIMIT                  
> CLIENT 100 ROW LIMIT                      
> Since the leading constraint is =,  ORDER BY will be unaffected by it, so 
> ORDER BY should not need the leading constraint; it should only require the 
> columns whose values would vary (which, since they are ordered by the key, 
> should (and do) result in the client side sort being optimized out.) Having 
> to include the leading = constraints in the ORDER BY clause is very 
> counter-intuitive.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Reply via email to