[Enhancement] Transform count(distinct pk) into count(pk) #51578
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
kangkaisen
reviewed
Oct 8, 2024
| private boolean isPrimaryKey(ColumnRefOperator column, LogicalOlapScanOperator scan) { | ||
| OlapTable olapTable = (OlapTable) scan.getTable(); | ||
| if (olapTable.getKeysType() == KeysType.PRIMARY_KEYS) { | ||
| List<String> keyColumnNames = olapTable.getKeyColumns() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
public List<Column> getKeyColumns() {
return getColumns().stream().filter(Column::isKey).collect(Collectors.toList());
}
The code is redundant
There was a problem hiding this comment.
public List<Column> getKeyColumns() { return getColumns().stream().filter(Column::isKey).collect(Collectors.toList()); } The code is redundant
Thanks for your suggestion, already fixed it in latest commit :)
Signed-off-by: Daniel Tu <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Tu <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Tu <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Tu <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Tu <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Tu <[email protected]>
danielhumanmod
force-pushed
the
pr-50974
branch
from
ff0548e
to
2e71037
Compare
|
[Java-Extensions Incremental Coverage Report]✅ pass : 0 / 0 (0%) |
[FE Incremental Coverage Report]✅ pass : 18 / 19 (94.74%) file detail
|
[BE Incremental Coverage Report]✅ pass : 0 / 0 (0%) |
satanson
approved these changes
Oct 9, 2024
Seaven
approved these changes
Oct 10, 2024
ZiheLiu
pushed a commit
to ZiheLiu/starrocks
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 31, 2024
…51578) Signed-off-by: Daniel Tu <[email protected]>
renzhimin7
pushed a commit
to renzhimin7/starrocks
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 7, 2024
…51578) Signed-off-by: Daniel Tu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: zhiminr.ren <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Why I'm doing:
In queries where COUNT(DISTINCT primary_key), the DISTINCT operation is redundant since the primary key guarantees uniqueness. We can optimize it by removing DISTINCT on aggregation(like count and sum) on primary key.
What I'm doing:
This change is primarily within the
GroupByCountDistinctRewriteRule. Additional logic has been added into this rule to detect cases where an aggregation (such as COUNT or SUM) is performed on a DISTINCT primary key. If the column is a primary key, the DISTINCT operation is automatically removed from the query. This optimization applies only when the aggregation is performed on a single primary key column, ensuring correctness by leveraging the uniqueness guarantee of primary keys.Fixes #50974
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: