[improve](planner) select * unique_table limit n should use one instance#53948
Conversation
|
Thank you for your contribution to Apache Doris. Please clearly describe your PR:
|
|
run buildall |
|
PR approved by at least one committer and no changes requested. |
|
PR approved by anyone and no changes requested. |
TPC-H: Total hot run time: 34140 ms |
TPC-DS: Total hot run time: 173216 ms |
ClickBench: Total hot run time: 33.48 s |
BE UT Coverage ReportIncrement line coverage Increment coverage report
|
BE Regression && UT Coverage ReportIncrement line coverage Increment coverage report
|
FE UT Coverage ReportIncrement line coverage |
BE Regression && UT Coverage ReportIncrement line coverage Increment coverage report
|
BE Regression && UT Coverage ReportIncrement line coverage Increment coverage report
|
…nce (#53948) ### What problem does this PR solve? Problem Summary: the unique_table has a condition of delete_sign = 0 awalys, so it's not have plan for one instance to scan table, now add some check for unique_table let running only one instance for select limit n.
…nce (#53948) ### What problem does this PR solve? Problem Summary: the unique_table has a condition of delete_sign = 0 awalys, so it's not have plan for one instance to scan table, now add some check for unique_table let running only one instance for select limit n.
…se one instance #53948 (#54186) Cherry-picked from #53948 Co-authored-by: zhangstar333 <[email protected]>
…se one instance #53948 (#54182) Cherry-picked from #53948 Co-authored-by: zhangstar333 <[email protected]>
What problem does this PR solve?
Problem Summary:
the unique_table has a condition of delete_sign = 0 awalys,
so it's not have plan for one instance to scan table,
now add some check for unique_table let running only one instance for select limit n.
Release note
None
Check List (For Author)
Test
Behavior changed:
Does this need documentation?
Check List (For Reviewer who merge this PR)