Skip to content

branch-4.2 [opt](aggregate) eliminate FD-redundant group-by keys via ANY_VALUE wrapping - #68209

Open
englefly wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:branch-4.2from
englefly:pick-64849-4.2
Open

englefly wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:branch-4.2from
englefly:pick-64849-4.2

Conversation

@englefly

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Cherry-pick of #64849 to branch-4.2

opt eliminate FD-redundant group-by keys via ANY_VALUE wrapping

Two expectations in EliminateGroupByKeyByUniformTest were kept at branch-4.2's behaviour: the upstream update relies on uniform-trait derivation for outer-join outputs that master has and branch-4.2 does not, so on 4.2 those two left-join cases still return the pre-pick group-by keys.
Unit tests EliminateGroupByKeyTest (14) and EliminateGroupByKeyByUniformTest (22) pass; regression suites eliminate_gby_key / agg_variety etc. pass.

…ANY_VALUE wrapping (apache#64849)

### What problem does this PR solve?
When a group-by key is functionally dependent on another key (e.g.
s_suppkey -> s_name via PK) but required in output, remove it from GROUP
BY and wrap with ANY_VALUE().

Previously EliminateGroupByKey kept such keys in GROUP BY to preserve
SQL semantics. Now they are replaced with ANY_VALUE wrappers in the
output, allowing the group-by set to be minimized while keeping the
column in SELECT.

Public findCanBeRemovedExpressions() API preserved for backward
compatibility. Internal logic split into FindResult with separate
removeExpression and wrapWithAnyValue sets.

Test: testEliminateByPkWithOutputNeeded verifies ANY_VALUE wrapping when
SELECT contains an FD-redundant group-by key.

Issue Number: close #xxx

Related PR: apache#65982 apache#66801 apache#66803
上面 3 个 pr 是原有 master 的bug fix. pick 这个 pr 前, 确保上面 3 个 pr 已经 pick
Problem Summary:

### Release note

None

### Check List (For Author)

- Test <!-- At least one of them must be included. -->
    - [ ] Regression test
    - [ ] Unit Test
    - [ ] Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
    - [ ] No need to test or manual test. Explain why:
- [ ] This is a refactor/code format and no logic has been changed.
        - [ ] Previous test can cover this change.
        - [ ] No code files have been changed.
        - [ ] Other reason <!-- Add your reason?  -->

- Behavior changed:
    - [ ] No.
    - [ ] Yes. <!-- Explain the behavior change -->

- Does this need documentation?
    - [ ] No.
- [ ] Yes. <!-- Add document PR link here. eg:
apache/doris-website#1214 -->

### Check List (For Reviewer who merge this PR)

- [ ] Confirm the release note
- [ ] Confirm test cases
- [ ] Confirm document
- [ ] Add branch pick label <!-- Add branch pick label that this PR
should merge into -->
@englefly
englefly requested a review from yiguolei as a code owner September 18, 2026 15:58
@hello-stephen

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Thank you for your contribution to Apache Doris.
Don't know what should be done next? See How to process your PR.

Please clearly describe your PR:

  1. What problem was fixed (it's best to include specific error reporting information). How it was fixed.
  2. Which behaviors were modified. What was the previous behavior, what is it now, why was it modified, and what possible impacts might there be.
  3. What features were added. Why was this function added?
  4. Which code was refactored and why was this part of the code refactored?
  5. Which functions were optimized and what is the difference before and after the optimization?

@englefly

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

run buildall

@hello-stephen

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

FE UT Coverage Report

Increment line coverage 86.92% (93/107) 🎉
Increment coverage report
Complete coverage report

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants