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

Optimize MergeEqInFilterOptimizer by reducing the hash computation of Expression #14732

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 31, 2024

Conversation

Jackie-Jiang
Copy link
Contributor

Calculating hash code of thrift Expression is super expensive, so we should reduce the hash computation as much as possible.
This PR changes the Set<Expression> to Map<String, Expression> to perform the deduplication of IN predicate values. The key is the string representation of the value, which is consistent of how predicates are handle on the server side (see RequestContextUtils.getFilter().

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Dec 31, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 97.56098% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 63.82%. Comparing base (59551e4) to head (9ab8c81).
Report is 1520 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
...ery/optimizer/filter/MergeEqInFilterOptimizer.java 97.56% 0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master   #14732      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     61.75%   63.82%   +2.07%     
- Complexity      207     1607    +1400     
============================================
  Files          2436     2703     +267     
  Lines        133233   150651   +17418     
  Branches      20636    23268    +2632     
============================================
+ Hits          82274    96157   +13883     
- Misses        44911    47305    +2394     
- Partials       6048     7189    +1141     
Flag Coverage Δ
custom-integration1 100.00% <ø> (+99.99%) ⬆️
integration 100.00% <ø> (+99.99%) ⬆️
integration1 100.00% <ø> (+99.99%) ⬆️
integration2 0.00% <ø> (ø)
java-11 63.78% <97.56%> (+2.07%) ⬆️
java-21 63.72% <97.56%> (+2.09%) ⬆️
skip-bytebuffers-false 63.82% <97.56%> (+2.07%) ⬆️
skip-bytebuffers-true 63.69% <97.56%> (+35.96%) ⬆️
temurin 63.82% <97.56%> (+2.07%) ⬆️
unittests 63.82% <97.56%> (+2.07%) ⬆️
unittests1 56.25% <97.56%> (+9.36%) ⬆️
unittests2 34.17% <85.36%> (+6.43%) ⬆️

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@Jackie-Jiang Jackie-Jiang merged commit 9b96068 into apache:master Dec 31, 2024
21 checks passed
@Jackie-Jiang Jackie-Jiang deleted the merge_eq_in_optimizer branch December 31, 2024 07:02
zeronerdzerogeekzerocool pushed a commit to zeronerdzerogeekzerocool/pinot that referenced this pull request Feb 20, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants