Optimizer: Fix null filtering logic for IN list

[ghazalfamilyusa]

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: close #49476

Problem Summary:

Incorrect outer to inner join conversion for some cases of IN list incorrectly treated as null filtering.
An example in #49476

CREATE TABLE t0(c0 INT);
CREATE TABLE t1(c0 BOOLEAN);
INSERT INTO t0 (c0) VALUES (0);

SELECT * FROM t1 NATURAL RIGHT JOIN t0; -- 0
SELECT (false IN (t1.c0, t0.c0)) FROM t1 NATURAL RIGHT JOIN t0; -- 1
SELECT * FROM t1 NATURAL RIGHT JOIN t0 WHERE (false IN (t1.c0, t0.c0));
-- Expected: 0
-- Actual: Empty set

The problem is in the constant folding logic when it is used to evaluate null rejection logic.
The logic is risky and just fills in constant 1 for non-inner side. In the example above the IN list becomes
false in (null,1) which is false (null filter is true).

What changed and how does it work?

Fix done at the top level code for null filtering logic used in outer to inner. The fix use the OR logic instead of IN list.
For example, alse IN (t1.c0, t0.c0)) is checked for nullability using (false = t1.c0) or (false = t0.c0) which is not null filter.
Also, this PR consolidates the null rejection code from outer to inner code and the general utility code. This includes cleans up of previous special cases.

Check List

Tests

• Unit test
• Integration test
• Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
• No need to test

  • I checked and no code files have been changed.

Side effects

• Performance regression: Consumes more CPU
• Performance regression: Consumes more Memory
• Breaking backward compatibility

Documentation

• Affects user behaviors
• Contains syntax changes
• Contains variable changes
• Contains experimental features
• Changes MySQL compatibility

Release note

Please refer to Release Notes Language Style Guide to write a quality release note.

None

[tiprow]

Hi @ghazalfamilyusa. Thanks for your PR.

PRs from untrusted users cannot be marked as trusted with /ok-to-test in this repo meaning untrusted PR authors can never trigger tests themselves. Collaborators can still trigger tests on the PR using /test all.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 95.16129% with 3 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 73.0911%. Comparing base (f5ac93e) to head (03dc40b).
Report is 16 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@               Coverage Diff                @@
##             master     #53370        +/-   ##
================================================
+ Coverage   72.6008%   73.0911%   +0.4902%     
================================================
  Files          1505       1523        +18     
  Lines        429827     439569      +9742     
================================================
+ Hits         312058     321286      +9228     
+ Misses        98576      98362       -214     
- Partials      19193      19921       +728     

Flag	Coverage Δ
integration	46.4585% <95.1612%> (?)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Components	Coverage Δ
dumpling	53.9957% <ø> (ø)
parser	∅ <ø> (∅)
br	42.0941% <ø> (+0.6934%)	⬆️

[hawkingrei]

/ok-to-test

[winoros]

I got the idea!

[ti-chi-bot]

[LGTM Timeline notifier]

Timeline:

• 2024-05-19 16:31:34.010884399 +0000 UTC m=+2016447.768019971: ☑️ agreed by winoros.
• 2024-05-21 07:39:46.720460062 +0000 UTC m=+2157340.477595635: ☑️ agreed by qw4990.

[qw4990]

Better to add a case here to explain why we have to treat IN-LIST as OR here. The rest LGTM!

[qw4990]

So if the in-list contains a column from the non-inner side, then it can never pass the NF check.

[ghazalfamilyusa]

The explanation for this case is shown above and in the issue. I guess you guys think it is better to add it in the code. Added that to the comment.

[AilinKid]

Rest LGTM

[AilinKid]

i think the comment should be refined as well, "inner table" has no ideas with

[ghazalfamilyusa]

added explanation to inner table as "null producing side"

[ti-chi-bot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: AilinKid, qw4990, winoros

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• pkg/planner/OWNERS [AilinKid,qw4990,winoros]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[ti-chi-bot]

In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch release-7.5: #53459.

[ti-chi-bot]

In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch release-6.5: #53911.

[ti-chi-bot]

In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch release-8.1: #53912.