Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

expression: add simple expression semantic equal check logic #43558

Merged
merged 9 commits into from
May 6, 2023

Conversation

AilinKid
Copy link
Contributor

@AilinKid AilinKid commented May 5, 2023

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: close #43572

Problem Summary:

What is changed and how it works?

In TiDB Expression tree, sometimes we may need judge whether two expression tree are semantic equal,
this PR adds the simple check logic ported from SparkSQL.

Check List

Tests

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

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

Signed-off-by: AilinKid <314806019@qq.com>
@ti-chi-bot
Copy link

ti-chi-bot bot commented May 5, 2023

[REVIEW NOTIFICATION]

This pull request has been approved by:

  • qw4990
  • xuyifangreeneyes

To complete the pull request process, please ask the reviewers in the list to review by filling /cc @reviewer in the comment.
After your PR has acquired the required number of LGTMs, you can assign this pull request to the committer in the list by filling /assign @committer in the comment to help you merge this pull request.

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

Reviewer can indicate their review by submitting an approval review.
Reviewer can cancel approval by submitting a request changes review.

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot added do-not-merge/needs-linked-issue release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. labels May 5, 2023
Signed-off-by: AilinKid <314806019@qq.com>
@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot added the status/LGT1 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 1. label May 5, 2023
Signed-off-by: AilinKid <314806019@qq.com>
sc := ctx.GetSessionVars().StmtCtx
sc.CanonicalHashCode.Store(true)
defer sc.CanonicalHashCode.Store(false)
return bytes.Equal(expr1.HashCode(sc), expr2.HashCode(sc))
Copy link
Contributor

@xuyifangreeneyes xuyifangreeneyes May 5, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

(*ScalarFunction).HashCode is not a pure function and has the side effect(i.e., if len(sf.hashcode) > 0, then we don't need to recalculate it). Is it ok to expose the hash code calculated under CanonicalHashCode mode to outside?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nice catch!
Addressed.

if !ok {
// use the origin arg hash code.
for _, argCode := range argsHashCode {
sf.hashcode = append(sf.hashcode, argCode...)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do we need to encode the not op?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nope:
Expression1: not(a<b)
Expression2: a>=b
Expression1 and Expression2 should have the same hashcode, we try to disintegrate the NOT into a mathematical operation convertion.

Signed-off-by: AilinKid <314806019@qq.com>
.
Signed-off-by: AilinKid <314806019@qq.com>
.
Signed-off-by: AilinKid <314806019@qq.com>
.
Signed-off-by: AilinKid <314806019@qq.com>
.
Signed-off-by: AilinKid <314806019@qq.com>
@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot added status/LGT2 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 2. and removed status/LGT1 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 1. labels May 6, 2023
.
Signed-off-by: AilinKid <314806019@qq.com>
@AilinKid
Copy link
Contributor Author

AilinKid commented May 6, 2023

/merge

@ti-chi-bot
Copy link

ti-chi-bot bot commented May 6, 2023

This pull request has been accepted and is ready to merge.

Commit hash: ecae432

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot added the status/can-merge Indicates a PR has been approved by a committer. label May 6, 2023
@AilinKid
Copy link
Contributor Author

AilinKid commented May 6, 2023

/retest

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot merged commit a7b957a into pingcap:master May 6, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. status/can-merge Indicates a PR has been approved by a committer. status/LGT2 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 2.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Expression tree lack of semantic equivalent check function util
3 participants