Skip to content

Allow specifying the hashing method for CreateLookupVindex#14157

Closed
dbussink wants to merge 1 commit intovitessio:mainfrom
dbussink:support-overriding-hashing
Closed

Allow specifying the hashing method for CreateLookupVindex#14157
dbussink wants to merge 1 commit intovitessio:mainfrom
dbussink:support-overriding-hashing

Conversation

@dbussink
Copy link
Member

@dbussink dbussink commented Oct 2, 2023

This change allows specifying the vschema fragment to override the hashing used for the backup table for the lookup vindex. This is something someone can manually already modify / set up in the vschema, but CreateLookupVindex does not support this properly.

Related Issue(s)

Fixes #14155

Checklist

  • "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported
  • Tests were added or are not required
  • Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on the CI
  • Documentation was added or is not required

@dbussink
Allow specifying the hashing method for CreateLookupVindex
61c474a 
This change allows specifying the vschema fragment to override the
hashing used for the backup table for the lookup vindex. This is
something someone can manually already modify / set up in the vschema,
but CreateLookupVindex does not support this properly.

Signed-off-by: Dirkjan Bussink <d.bussink@gmail.com>
@vitess-bot
Copy link
Contributor

vitess-bot bot commented Oct 2, 2023

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.

@vitess-bot vitess-bot bot added NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says labels Oct 2, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v19.0.0 milestone Oct 2, 2023
@dbussink dbussink added Type: Enhancement Logical improvement (somewhere between a bug and feature) Component: Query Serving and removed NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request labels Oct 2, 2023
mattlord
mattlord reviewed Oct 2, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@mattlord mattlord left a comment •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks, @dbussink ! Overall this LGTM and makes sense. Just a couple of minor things.

I'm working on the vtctldclient implementation here (was about to mark it as ready for review): #14086

I can add the same support there.

We should update the e2e test to include the lookup vindex's target table primary vindex definition too. I can do that in my PR.

go/vt/wrangler/materializer.go

// Update targetVSchema
var targetTable *vschemapb.Table
targetTable := specs.Tables[targetTableName].CloneVT()
Copy link
Member

@mattlord mattlord Oct 2, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why do a clone here?

Copy link
Member Author

@dbussink dbussink Oct 2, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Wanted to make sure it doesn’t end up modifying the original here from the user input.

Copy link
Member

@mattlord mattlord Oct 2, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We don't change it though. And I feel like if we do change it, that might be what we want? I don't know why we'd want them to differ off the top of my head. I was gong to skip this part in the vtctldclient implementation.

go/vt/wrangler/materializer.go
// Loop executes once or twice
for k, ti := range specs.Tables {
if len(ti.ColumnVindexes) != 1 {
return nil, nil, nil, fmt.Errorf("exactly one ColumnVindex must be specified for the table: %v", specs.Tables)
Copy link
Member

@mattlord mattlord Oct 2, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We should now instead specify the actual table name here rather than the spec.

Copy link
Member Author

@dbussink dbussink Oct 2, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You mean in the error message?

mattlord
mattlord reviewed Oct 2, 2023
View reviewed changes
go/vt/wrangler/materializer.go
vindexCols = ti.ColumnVindexes[0].Columns
} else {
if ti.ColumnVindexes[0].Column == "" {
return nil, nil, nil, fmt.Errorf("at least one column must be specified in ColumnVindexes: %v", sourceTable.ColumnVindexes)
Copy link
Member

@mattlord mattlord Oct 2, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This should be using ti.ColumnVindexes in the error.

@mattlord mattlord mentioned this pull request Oct 2, 2023
Merged
4 tasks
@harshit-gangal harshit-gangal added NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says release notes (needs details) This PR needs to be listed in the release notes in a dedicated section (deprecation notice, etc...) labels Oct 3, 2023
@harshit-gangal
Copy link
Member

harshit-gangal commented Oct 3, 2023

I have added two labels

@mattlord
Copy link
Member

mattlord commented Oct 3, 2023

After talking with Harshit, I think I'm going to make the default for --continue-after-copy-with-owner true in #14086. Now that I understand how this all works I think it should be.

Since we're going to be updating the summary in this PR anyway, should we change the vtctlclient default here as well @harshit-gangal ?

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Nov 3, 2023

This PR is being marked as stale because it has been open for 30 days with no activity. To rectify, you may do any of the following:

  • Push additional commits to the associated branch.
  • Remove the stale label.
  • Add a comment indicating why it is not stale.

If no action is taken within 7 days, this PR will be closed.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the Stale Marks PRs as stale after a period of inactivity, which are then closed after a grace period. label Nov 3, 2023
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Nov 10, 2023

This PR was closed because it has been stale for 7 days with no activity.

@github-actions github-actions bot closed this Nov 10, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@mattlord mattlord mattlord left review comments

@deepthi deepthi Awaiting requested review from deepthi

@rohit-nayak-ps rohit-nayak-ps Awaiting requested review from rohit-nayak-ps rohit-nayak-ps is a code owner

@harshit-gangal harshit-gangal Awaiting requested review from harshit-gangal harshit-gangal is a code owner

@systay systay Awaiting requested review from systay systay is a code owner

@frouioui frouioui Awaiting requested review from frouioui frouioui is a code owner

@GuptaManan100 GuptaManan100 Awaiting requested review from GuptaManan100

@arthurschreiber arthurschreiber Awaiting requested review from arthurschreiber arthurschreiber is a code owner

@ajm188 ajm188 Awaiting requested review from ajm188

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

Component: Query Serving NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says release notes (needs details) This PR needs to be listed in the release notes in a dedicated section (deprecation notice, etc...) Stale Marks PRs as stale after a period of inactivity, which are then closed after a grace period. Type: Enhancement Logical improvement (somewhere between a bug and feature)

Projects

None yet

Milestone

v19.0.0

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Feature Request: Allow setting the hashing used for lookup vindexes in CreateLookupVindex

3 participants

@dbussink @harshit-gangal @mattlord