etcd runs a LOT more goroutines during server startup. Fix a
goroutine/for loop bug causing us to run four 7-node clusters
instead of 1/3/4/7-node clusters, also have the test/cluster
code reduce import workers. We can't do much about the spamminess
of the Raft stuff, but this should tone it down some.
This changes Count(Precall()) operations to execute the precall directly inside of the count operation, bypassing the transformation to a Precomputed() call.
Eliminating the Precomputed() step causes Count(Distinct()) to work properly on negative integers.
We want to distinguish different *kinds* of GroupCounts, so we're
making the GroupCounts parent object track its type so we can keep that
correct.
Adding this to protobuf, etc, then creates some weird behaviors
because sometimes we expect []GroupCount, and sometimes we expect
*GroupCounts. This implies changes to test cases. Also, the
changes to test cases imply that some test cases are probably now
wrong; for instance, they're expecting a "sum" column, equal to zero,
when no sum was requested.
We try to make the encoder handle a []*GroupCount gotten from another
node without panicing, and avoid breaking the semantics of the existing
messages, renumbering messages or components, etc.
Since a previous version, the `.Groups` member has been privatized,
and the `.Get()` convenience accessor has been renamed `.Groups()`
and is now used consistently in a way that should reduce the risk
of nil pointers causing crashes. Also, NewGroupCounts is used in
a couple more places.
If a precomputed call returns a nil Row result somehow, that could
cause a nil pointer exception when handling the result in
handlePreCall.
In this particular case, A Distinct call on a BSI field with a filter
which returned no results could return a SignedRow{} with nil *Rows
inside of it. This only manifested if there was data in a single shard
as otherwise the reduce logic created a SignedRow with empty *Row
objects rather than nil ones. Isn't that fun?
Extra fun: the reason the filter was returning no results was not
because it was actually empty, but because of another bug where
constructing the Distinct calls to compute the aggregate of a GroupBy
doesn't take into account that the group might include an integer
field which means that the call needs to be constructed
differently. That bug is not fixed in this commit, hence the tests are
still failing, but not panicking.
the limit could get applied before "having" in some cases which could
result in results being discarded which met the having condition while
results were kept which did not, ultimately resulting in GroupBy
falsely reporting fewer results than actually existed.
