[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-6420?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17309719#comment-17309719
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on PHOENIX-6420:
-----------------------------------------
tkhurana commented on a change in pull request #1183:
URL: https://github.com/apache/phoenix/pull/1183#discussion_r602577275
##########
File path:
phoenix-core/src/main/java/org/apache/phoenix/execute/MutationState.java
##########
@@ -586,10 +638,11 @@ public boolean hasNext() {
// the tables in the mutations map
if (!sendAll) {
TableRef key = new TableRef(index);
- MultiRowMutationState multiRowMutationState =
mutations.remove(key);
+ List<MultiRowMutationState> multiRowMutationState =
mutationsMap.remove(key);
if (multiRowMutationState != null) {
final List<Mutation> deleteMutations =
Lists.newArrayList();
- generateMutations(key, mutationTimestamp,
serverTimestamp, multiRowMutationState, deleteMutations, null);
+ // for index table there will only be 1 mutation
batch in the list
Review comment:
@gjacoby126 For indexes, the only time we see an entry in the map is in
case of deletes and that too for immutable indexes. So I don't expect a
conflicting update unless someone explicitly does a regular upsert and
conditional upsert directly on index table which is theoretically possible but
highly unlikely.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
> Wrong result when conditional and regular upserts are passed in the same
> commit batch
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: PHOENIX-6420
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-6420
> Project: Phoenix
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Tanuj Khurana
> Assignee: Tanuj Khurana
> Priority: Major
>
> Consider this example:
> {code:java}
> CREATE TABLE T1 (k integer not null primary key, v1 bigint, v2 bigint);
> {code}
> Now consider this batch:
> {code:java}
> UPSERT INTO T1 VALUES(0,0,1);
> UPSERT INTO T1 VALUES(0,1,1) ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE v1 = v1 + 2;
> commit();
> {code}
> Expected row state: 0, 2, 1
> Actual: 0, 2, 0
> The value of the column (v2) not updated in the conditional expression
> remains default. It's value should have been the one set in the regular
> upsert in the batch.
> Now, the row exists. Consider another batch of updates
> {code:java}
> UPSERT INTO T1 VALUES(0, 7, 4);
> UPSERT INTO T1 VALUES(0,1,1) ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE v1 = v1 + 2;
> commit();
> {code}
> Expected row state: 0,2,1 -> 0, 9, 4
> Actual: 0,2,0 -> 0, 4, 0
> The conditional update expression is evaluated and applied on the row state
> already committed instead of on the regular update in the same batch. Also,
> v2 still remains 0 (the default value).
> Now consider the case of a partial regular update following a conditional
> update:
> {code:java}
> UPSERT INTO T1 (k, v2) VALUES(0,100) ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE v1 = v1 + 2;
> UPSERT INTO T1 (k, v2) VALUES (0,125);
> commit();
> {code}
> Expected row state: 0, 9, 4 -> 0, 11, 125
> Actual: 0, 4, 0 -> 0, 4, 125
> Only the regular update is applied and the conditional update is completely
> ignored.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
