Commit 89786381 authored by Gleb Shchepa's avatar Gleb Shchepa

Bug #39653: find_shortest_key in sql_select.cc does not

            consider clustered primary keys

Choosing a shortest index for the covering index scan,
the optimizer ignored the fact, that the clustered primary
key read involves whole table data.

The find_shortest_key function has been modified to
take into account that fact that a clustered PK has a
longest key of possible covering indices.
parent fd7bf5bc
...@@ -2295,4 +2295,26 @@ id select_type table type possible_keys key key_len ref rows Extra ...@@ -2295,4 +2295,26 @@ id select_type table type possible_keys key key_len ref rows Extra
1 SIMPLE t2 ref f1 f1 4 test.t1.f1 1 Using index 1 SIMPLE t2 ref f1 f1 4 test.t1.f1 1 Using index
drop table t1,t2; drop table t1,t2;
# #
#
# Bug #39653: find_shortest_key in sql_select.cc does not consider
# clustered primary keys
#
CREATE TABLE t1 (a INT PRIMARY KEY, b INT, c INT, d INT, e INT, f INT,
KEY (b,c)) ENGINE=INNODB;
INSERT INTO t1 VALUES (1,1,1,1,1,1), (2,2,2,2,2,2), (3,3,3,3,3,3),
(4,4,4,4,4,4), (5,5,5,5,5,5), (6,6,6,6,6,6),
(7,7,7,7,7,7), (8,8,8,8,8,8), (9,9,9,9,9,9),
(11,11,11,11,11,11);
EXPLAIN SELECT COUNT(*) FROM t1;
id 1
select_type SIMPLE
table t1
type index
possible_keys NULL
key b
key_len 10
ref NULL
rows 10
Extra Using index
DROP TABLE t1;
End of 5.1 tests End of 5.1 tests
...@@ -558,4 +558,22 @@ drop table t1,t2; ...@@ -558,4 +558,22 @@ drop table t1,t2;
--echo # --echo #
--echo #
--echo # Bug #39653: find_shortest_key in sql_select.cc does not consider
--echo # clustered primary keys
--echo #
CREATE TABLE t1 (a INT PRIMARY KEY, b INT, c INT, d INT, e INT, f INT,
KEY (b,c)) ENGINE=INNODB;
INSERT INTO t1 VALUES (1,1,1,1,1,1), (2,2,2,2,2,2), (3,3,3,3,3,3),
(4,4,4,4,4,4), (5,5,5,5,5,5), (6,6,6,6,6,6),
(7,7,7,7,7,7), (8,8,8,8,8,8), (9,9,9,9,9,9),
(11,11,11,11,11,11);
--query_vertical EXPLAIN SELECT COUNT(*) FROM t1
DROP TABLE t1;
--echo End of 5.1 tests --echo End of 5.1 tests
...@@ -12912,12 +12912,35 @@ static int test_if_order_by_key(ORDER *order, TABLE *table, uint idx, ...@@ -12912,12 +12912,35 @@ static int test_if_order_by_key(ORDER *order, TABLE *table, uint idx,
uint find_shortest_key(TABLE *table, const key_map *usable_keys) uint find_shortest_key(TABLE *table, const key_map *usable_keys)
{ {
uint min_length= (uint) ~0;
uint best= MAX_KEY; uint best= MAX_KEY;
uint usable_clustered_pk= (table->file->primary_key_is_clustered() &&
table->s->primary_key != MAX_KEY &&
usable_keys->is_set(table->s->primary_key)) ?
table->s->primary_key : MAX_KEY;
if (!usable_keys->is_clear_all()) if (!usable_keys->is_clear_all())
{ {
uint min_length= (uint) ~0;
for (uint nr=0; nr < table->s->keys ; nr++) for (uint nr=0; nr < table->s->keys ; nr++)
{ {
/*
As far as
1) clustered primary key entry data set is a set of all record
fields (key fields and not key fields) and
2) secondary index entry data is a union of its key fields and
primary key fields (at least InnoDB and its derivatives don't
duplicate primary key fields there, even if the primary and
the secondary keys have a common subset of key fields),
then secondary index entry data is always a subset of primary key
entry, and the PK is always longer.
Unfortunately, key_info[nr].key_length doesn't show the length
of key/pointer pair but a sum of key field lengths only, thus
we can't estimate index IO volume comparing only this key_length
value of seconday keys and clustered PK.
So, try secondary keys first, and choose PK only if there are no
usable secondary covering keys:
*/
if (nr == usable_clustered_pk)
continue;
if (usable_keys->is_set(nr)) if (usable_keys->is_set(nr))
{ {
if (table->key_info[nr].key_length < min_length) if (table->key_info[nr].key_length < min_length)
...@@ -12928,7 +12951,7 @@ uint find_shortest_key(TABLE *table, const key_map *usable_keys) ...@@ -12928,7 +12951,7 @@ uint find_shortest_key(TABLE *table, const key_map *usable_keys)
} }
} }
} }
return best; return best != MAX_KEY ? best : usable_clustered_pk;
} }
/** /**
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment