VReplication: Support for BETWEEN/NOT BETWEEN filter in VStream

[beingnoble03]

Description

This PR adds support for BETWEEN filter in VStream.

Related Issue(s)

• Feature Request: Add VStream Filter support for BETWEEN and ISNULL #17682

Checklist

• "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported to release branches
• If this change is to be back-ported to previous releases, a justification is included in the PR description
• Tests were added or are not required
• Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on CI?
• Documentation was added or is not required

Deployment Notes

[vitess-bot]

Review Checklist

Hello reviewers! 👋 Please follow this checklist when reviewing this Pull Request.

General

• Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
• Ensure there is a link to an issue (except for internal cleanup and flaky test fixes), new features should have an RFC that documents use cases and test cases.

Tests

• Bug fixes should have at least one unit or end-to-end test, enhancement and new features should have a sufficient number of tests.

Documentation

• Apply the release notes (needs details) label if users need to know about this change.
• New features should be documented.
• There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.
• There should be a comment at the top of each new or modified test to explain what the test does.

New flags

• Is this flag really necessary?
• Flag names must be clear and intuitive, use dashes (-), and have a clear help text.

If a workflow is added or modified:

• Each item in Jobs should be named in order to mark it as required.
• If the workflow needs to be marked as required, the maintainer team must be notified.

Backward compatibility

• Protobuf changes should be wire-compatible.
• Changes to _vt tables and RPCs need to be backward compatible.
• RPC changes should be compatible with vitess-operator
• If a flag is removed, then it should also be removed from vitess-operator and arewefastyet, if used there.
• vtctl command output order should be stable and awk-able.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 75.25773% with 24 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 67.96%. Comparing base (4c27ea8) to head (b5d6cf9).
Report is 19 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
.../vt/vttablet/tabletserver/vstreamer/planbuilder.go	75.25%	24 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #17721      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   67.97%   67.96%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1586     1586              
  Lines      255195   255305     +110     
==========================================
+ Hits       173468   173522      +54     
- Misses      81727    81783      +56     

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

[beingnoble03]

Tested this locally using the example local cluster.

[mattlord]

This is looking really good. Nice work on this so far!

Can you please look at the TestVStreamPushdownFilters endtoend test in go/test/endtoend/vreplication/vstream_test.go? We should add to that (additional test cases) or mimic it. This way we have an end to end test that covers both the copy phase (rowstreamer filtering) and the running phase (vstreamer filtering).

Please let me know if I can be of any help!

[rohit-nayak-ps]

@beingnoble03 let's update the website docs for this: https://vitess.io/docs/22.0/reference/vreplication/materialize/ (https://github.com/vitessio/website). Also check if we need to update that doc with the newly supported filter predicates since the docs were last updated.

[beingnoble03]

@mattlord This test was taking around 90 seconds to complete. Can you please let me know if there's a specific reason the timeout was set to 1 min? Is it okay to decrease it? Setting it to 10 sec still gets around 2 copy phase rows and ~70 running phase rows.

[mattlord]

This is an end to end test. 90 seconds is quite fast for an end to end test. At the same time... cutting it in half (or potentially even more) would be OK.