Andrew Wong has posted comments on this change. ( 
http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/18434 )

Change subject: KUDU-1644: Simplify InList predicate values based on rowset PK 
bounds
......................................................................


Patch Set 2: Code-Review+1

(2 comments)

Would be great if you could rebase; I'm not sure what test failures there were 
here.

http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/18434/2//COMMIT_MSG
Commit Message:

http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/18434/2//COMMIT_MSG@11
PS2, Line 11: Also, the DRS bounds info can be used to skip rows
            : effectively when we have a predicate on a non-prefix of the 
primary key and the
            : leading column(s) have cardinality=1 (as described in KUDU-1291).
> Yes, we can use the bound information to seek where we start to scan in a r
I see, so it's more that for rowsets with leading column cardinality = 1, the 
the per-rowset ScanSpec optimization reduces to a skip scan.

Sounds good. Doesn't this optimization also extend beyond InList predicates? 
Since it's using lower and uppser bounds, wouldn't it apply to range predicates 
as well?


http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/18434/2/src/kudu/tablet/cfile_set.cc
File src/kudu/tablet/cfile_set.cc:

http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/18434/2/src/kudu/tablet/cfile_set.cc@439
PS2, Line 439:     spec->SetLowerBoundKey(implicit_lb_key);
> Because we create a ScanSpec copy for each CFileSet Iterator: https://githu
Ah, makes sense. Thanks!



--
To view, visit http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/18434
To unsubscribe, visit http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/settings

Gerrit-Project: kudu
Gerrit-Branch: master
Gerrit-MessageType: comment
Gerrit-Change-Id: Ia9c2aa958f19a0b62e40a2ef5eb5365f91cbab80
Gerrit-Change-Number: 18434
Gerrit-PatchSet: 2
Gerrit-Owner: Yifan Zhang <chinazhangyi...@163.com>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Andrew Wong <aw...@cloudera.com>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Kudu Jenkins (120)
Gerrit-Reviewer: Yifan Zhang <chinazhangyi...@163.com>
Gerrit-Comment-Date: Sat, 07 May 2022 01:19:39 +0000
Gerrit-HasComments: Yes

Reply via email to