Fixes some typos as found by codespell run on the code.
In this commit, I was hoping to fix only comments, not user-visible alerts, output, etc.
Follow-up commits will take care of them.
Refs: https://github.com/scylladb/scylladb/issues/16255
Signed-off-by: Yaniv Kaul <yaniv.kaul@scylladb.com>
When evaluating an LWT condition involving both static and non-static
cells, and matching no regular row, the static row must be used UNLESS
the IF condition is IF EXISTS/IF NOT EXISTS, in which case special rules
apply.
Before this fix, Scylla used to assume a row doesn't exist if there is
no matching primary key. In Cassandra, if there is a
non-empty static row in the partition, a regular row based
on the static row' cell values is created in this case, and then this
row is used to evaluate the condition.
This problem was reported as gh-10081.
The reason for Scylla behaviour before the patch was that when
implementing LWT I tried to converge Cassandra data model (or lack of
thereof) with a relational data model, and assumed a static row is a
"shared" portion of a regular row, i.e. a storage level concept intended
to save space, and doesn't have independent existence.
This was an oversimplification.
This patch fixes gh-10081, making Scylla semantics match the one of
Cassandra.
I will now list other known examples when a static row has an own
independent existence as part of a table, for cataloguing purposes.
SELECT * from a partition which has a partition key
and a static cell set returns 1 row. If later a regular row is added
to the partition, the SELECT would still return 1 row, i.e.
the static row will disappear, and a regular row will appear instead.
Another example showing a static row has an independent existence below:
CREATE TABLE t (p int, c int, s int static, PRIMARY KEY(p, c));
INSERT INTO t (p, c) VALUES(1, 1);
INSERT INTO t (p, s) VALUES(1, 1) IF NOT EXISTS;
In Cassandra (and Scylla), IF NOT EXISTS evaluates to TRUE, even though both
the regular row and the partition exist. But the static cells are not
set, and the insert only provides a partition key, so the database assumes the
insert is operating against a static row.
It would be wrong to assume that a static row exists when the partition
key exists:
INSERT INTO t (p, c, s) VALUES(1, 1, 1) IF NOT EXISTS;
[applied] | p | c | s
-----------+---+---+------
False | 1 | 1 | null
evaluates to False, i.e. the regular row does exist when p and c exist.
Issue
CREATE TABLE t (p INT, c INT, r INT, s INT static, PRIMARY KEY(p, c))
INSERT INTO t (p, s) VALUES (1, 1);
UPDATE t SET s=2, r=1 WHERE p=1 AND c=1 IF s=1 and r=null;
- in this case, even though the regular row doesn't exist, the static
row does, and should be used for condition evaluation.
In other words, IF EXISTS/IF NOT EXISTS have contextual semantics.
They apply to the regular row if clustering key is used in the WHERE
clause, otherwise they apply to static row.
One analogy for static rows is that it is like a static member of C++ or
Java class. It's an attribute of the class (assuming class = partition),
which is accessible through every object of the class (object = regular
row). It is also present if there are no objects of the class, but the
class itself exists: i.e. a partition could have no regular rows, but
some static cells set, in this case it has a static row.
*Unlike C++/Java static class members* a static row is an optional
attribute of the partition. A partition may exist, but the static row
may be absent (e.g. no static cell is set). If the static row does exist,
all regular rows share its contents, *even if they do not exist*.
A regular row exists when its clustering key is present
in the table. A static row exists when at least one static cell is set.
Tests are updated because now when no matching row is found
for the update we show the value of the static row as the previous
value, instead of a non-matching clustering row.
Changes in v2:
- reworded the commit message
- added select tests
Closes#10711
Previously batch statement result set included rows for only
those updates which have a prefetch data present (i.e. there
was an "old" (pre-existing) row for a key).
Also, these rows were sorted not in the order in which statements
appear in the batch, but in the order of updated clustering keys.
If we have a batch which updates a few non-existent keys, then
it's impossible to figure out which update inserted a new key
by looking at the query response. Not only because the responses
may not correspond to the order of statements in the batch, but
even some rows may not show up in the result set at all.
The patch proposes the following fix:
For conditional batch statements the result set now always
includes a row for each LWT statement, in the same order
in which individual statements appear in the batch.
This way we can always tell which update did actually insert
a new key or update the existing one.
`update_parameters::prefetch_data::row::is_in_cas_result_set`
member variable was removed as well as supporting code in
`cas_request::applies_to` which iterated through cas updates
and marked individual `prefetch_data` rows as "need to be in
cas result set".
Instead now `cas_request::applies_to` is significantly
simplified since it doesn't do anything more than checking
`stmt.applies_to()` in short-circuiting manner.
A few tests for the issue are written, other lwt-batch-related
tests were adjusted accordingly to include rows in result set
for each statement inside conditional batches.
Tests: unit(dev, debug)
Co-authored-by: Konstantin Osipov <kostja@scylladb.com>
Signed-off-by: Pavel Solodovnikov <pa.solodovnikov@scylladb.com>
Add a couple of cql tests regarding conditional batches:
1. Verify that "delete" takes priority over "insert"
when applied to the same row within the same batch.
2. Test that a workaround for the issue works as expected (i.e.
delete only individual cells instead of the full record).
Tests: unit(dev)
Fixes: #6273
Signed-off-by: Pavel Solodovnikov <pa.solodovnikov@scylladb.com>
Message-Id: <20200506201200.176590-1-pa.solodovnikov@scylladb.com>
These unit tests cover all CQL aspects of lightweight transactions,
such as grammar, null semantics, batch semantics, result set
format, and so on.
For now, comment out unicode tests: test output depends
on libjsoncpp version in use.
