partition: fix exchange partition validition check for null value

[jiyfhust]

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: close #47167

Problem Summary:

What is changed and how it works?

Check List

Tests

• Unit test
• Integration test
• Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
• No need to test

  • I checked and no code files have been changed.

Side effects

• Performance regression: Consumes more CPU
• Performance regression: Consumes more Memory
• Breaking backward compatibility

Documentation

• Affects user behaviors
• Contains syntax changes
• Contains variable changes
• Contains experimental features
• Changes MySQL compatibility

Release note

Please refer to Release Notes Language Style Guide to write a quality release note.

None

[ti-chi-bot]

Hi @jiyfhust. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a pingcap member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[tiprow]

Hi @jiyfhust. Thanks for your PR.

PRs from untrusted users cannot be marked as trusted with /ok-to-test in this repo meaning untrusted PR authors can never trigger tests themselves. Collaborators can still trigger tests on the PR using /test all.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[jiyfhust]

The "partition by range columns(a, b, c)" case is not fixed by this pr, it seems to be difficult to fix it directly in func buildCheckSQLConditionForRangeColumnsPartition.

Mayby we can handle it this way:

CREATE TABLE t1 (a int, b int, c int) partition by range columns(a, b, c)(
		partition p0 values less than (100, 1000, 10000), 
		partition p1 values less than (200, 2000, 20000),
		partition p2 values less than (maxvalue, null, null));
CREATE TABLE t2 (a int, b int, c int);

alter table t1 EXCHANGE PARTITION p0 WITH TABLE t2; 

the checksql:

select 1 from t2 where (a, b, c) >= (100, 1000, 10000) imit 1;

alter table t1 EXCHANGE PARTITION p1 WITH TABLE t2; 

the checksql:

select 1 from t2 where (a, b, c) < (100, 1000, 10000) or (a, b, c) >= (200, 2000, 20000) or a is null or a = 100 and b is null or c = 100 and b = 1000 and c is null limit 1;

alter table t1 EXCHANGE PARTITION p2 WITH TABLE t2; 

the checksql:
select 1 from t2 where (a, b, c) < (200, 2000, 20000) or a is null or a = 200 and b is null or c = 200 and b = 2000 and c is null limit 1;

[mjonss]

/ok-to-test

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #47208 (083d566) into master (1f03420) will decrease coverage by 14.2552%.
Report is 78 commits behind head on master.
The diff coverage is 100.0000%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@                Coverage Diff                @@
##             master     #47208         +/-   ##
=================================================
- Coverage   70.5752%   56.3200%   -14.2552%     
=================================================
  Files          1467       1584        +117     
  Lines        434756     620919     +186163     
=================================================
+ Hits         306830     349702      +42872     
- Misses       108651     248388     +139737     
- Partials      19275      22829       +3554     

Flag	Coverage Δ
integration	38.7939% <28.5714%> (?)
unit	71.9317% <100.0000%> (+1.5631%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Components	Coverage Δ
dumpling	53.9957% <ø> (ø)
parser	∅ <ø> (∅)
br	51.1660% <ø> (+5.3119%)	⬆️

[mjonss]

The "partition by range columns(a, b, c)" case is not fixed by this pr, it seems to be difficult to fix it directly in func buildCheckSQLConditionForRangeColumnsPartition.
...

I thing you are on the right path, here is an example how an expression can be rewritten.

Please feel free to split out the RANGE COLUMS case from this PR.

[mjonss]

Can there be a case where the expression string also would need to be wrapped into parentheses?

[jiyfhust]

I have to say i'm not sure about it. I tested partition by range (id+1), the expression is already wapped. And if pi.Expr is null needed, then pi.Expr < %? seems also needs. I think we can keep it now before we can make sure some cases as you described exist.

[jiyfhust]

/test unit-test

[tiprow]

@jiyfhust: The specified target(s) for /test were not found.
The following commands are available to trigger required jobs:

• /test tiprow_fast_test

Use /test all to run all jobs.

In response to this:

/test unit-test

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[mjonss]

/retest

[jiyfhust]

@mjonss I think maybe we can review this pr as present.

[ti-chi-bot]

PR needs rebase.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[jiyfhust]

/test check-dev2

[tiprow]

@jiyfhust: The specified target(s) for /test were not found.
The following commands are available to trigger required jobs:

• /test tidb_parser_test
• /test tiprow_fast_test

Use /test all to run all jobs.

In response to this:

/test check-dev2

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[jiyfhust]

/cc @tiancaiamao
PTAL

[ti-chi-bot]

[LGTM Timeline notifier]

Timeline:

• 2024-02-08 09:36:42.713352806 +0000 UTC m=+435928.280122695: ☑️ agreed by mjonss.
• 2024-02-27 08:09:07.408164005 +0000 UTC m=+949436.155787115: ☑️ agreed by tiancaiamao.

[jiyfhust]

/label-remove needs-rebase

[jiyfhust]

/testall

[jiyfhust]

/retest

[jiyfhust]

PTAL @ti-chi-bot

[jiyfhust]

/test all

[jiyfhust]

@jebter @aytrack Please remove the needs-rebase lable, it can't be auto removed by ti-chi-bot.

[jiyfhust]

/check-issue-triage-complete

[jebter]

@jebter @aytrack Please remove the needs-rebase lable, it can't be auto removed by ti-chi-bot.

@wuhuizuo PTAL

[jiyfhust]

please assign wjhuang2016 for approval

/cc @wjhuang2016

[ti-chi-bot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: mjonss, tiancaiamao, wjhuang2016

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• pkg/ddl/OWNERS [wjhuang2016]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[tiancaiamao]

/merge

[ti-chi-bot]

@tiancaiamao: We have migrated to builtin LGTM and approve plugins for reviewing.

Please use /approve when you want approve this pull request.

The changes announcement: LGTM plugin changes

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the ti-community-infra/tichi repository.