[
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_master.patch
Slight tweak to previous patch to remove unused ScanRanges.useSkipScan()
method. FYI, the reason this is passed in instead of calculated is that the
caller (in particular WhereOptimizer), needs to know whether or not a skipScan
is being used as it determines whether or not expressions can be extracted from
the WHERE clause. For example, if we're forcing a range scan, we cannot extract
IN expressions. Thus this calculation is better left to the caller and not
attempted to be duplicated inside of the static method.
> 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
> Assignee: James Taylor
> Labels: AtMention, SFDC
> Fix For: 4.6, 4.5.2
>
> Attachments: PHOENIX-2194-tests.patch, PHOENIX-2194-tests2.patch,
> PHOENIX-2194.patch, PHOENIX-2194_master.patch, PHOENIX-2194_master.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)
