-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.3k
[Enhancement] support prune partitions in be #68141
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Seaven <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Seaven <[email protected]>
|
@cursor review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: eeec80aaf8
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".
fe/fe-core/src/main/java/com/starrocks/sql/plan/PlanFragmentBuilder.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Cursor Bugbot has reviewed your changes and found 4 potential issues.
Bugbot Autofix is OFF. To automatically fix reported issues with Cloud Agents, enable Autofix in the Cursor dashboard.
fe/fe-core/src/main/java/com/starrocks/sql/plan/PlanFragmentBuilder.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
fe/fe-core/src/main/java/com/starrocks/sql/plan/PlanFragmentBuilder.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Signed-off-by: Seaven <[email protected]>
|
@codex review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: a7acd51954
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| return List.of(); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| Preconditions.checkState(partitionValuesList.size() == partitionCols.size()); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fix list-partition range handling for multi-column values
In computePartitionRange the list-partition branch treats partitionValuesList as if its outer size equals the number of partition columns, but ListPartitionInfo.getMultiLiteralExprValues() returns a list of rows (each inner list contains values for all partition columns). That means Preconditions.checkState(partitionValuesList.size() == partitionCols.size()) will throw for typical multi-column list partitions (e.g., 2 columns with >2 list values), causing planning to fail as soon as partition pruning is enabled. Even if the sizes happen to match, the subsequent partitionValuesList.get(i) is a row, not the list of values for column i, so the TKeyRange values are misassigned. This should pivot rows into per-column lists (or validate inner list sizes) before building list_values.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
Signed-off-by: Seaven <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Seaven <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Seaven <[email protected]>
|
Signed-off-by: Seaven <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Seaven <[email protected]>
[Java-Extensions Incremental Coverage Report]✅ pass : 0 / 0 (0%) |
[BE Incremental Coverage Report]❌ fail : 0 / 91 (00.00%) file detail
|
|
@codex review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: c54873424d
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
Why I'm doing:
What I'm doing:
Fixes #issue
What type of PR is this:
Does this PR entail a change in behavior?
If yes, please specify the type of change:
Checklist:
Bugfix cherry-pick branch check: