db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "TomohitoNakayama" <tomon...@basil.ocn.ne.jp>
Subject Re: About improvement of DERBY-134
Date Sun, 27 Mar 2005 16:14:48 GMT
Hello.

I have modified patch for DERBY-134 and solved error at wisconsin.sql .

What I have done was as next.

change-1:
I made it possible to get value of  TableName.hasSchema via 
TableName.hasSchema() method.
This value seems to indicate whether schema was specified in sql , seeing 
code of sqlgrammer.jj and TableName.java.

change-2:
Calling method TableName.hasSchema() added by change-1 in 
OrderByColumn.resolveColumnReference(ResultSetNode,ColumnReference).
If True, pass schemaName to getFromTableByName as schemaName.
If false, pass null to getFromTableByName as schemaName

This was to make processing as same as original implementation, passing 
schemaName only when it was specified in sql.


Test result for winsoncin.sql is as next:

中山智仁@Arkat ~/derbyUser/wisconsin.20050328
$ testSql.bat lang/wisconsin.sql

c:\ProgramDev\derbyUser\wisconsin.20050328>set 
DERBY_INSTALL=c:\ProgramDev\derby
\trunk

c:\ProgramDev\derbyUser\wisconsin.20050328>FOR %X in 
("c:\ProgramDev\derby\trunk
") DO SET DERBY_INSTALL=%~sX

c:\ProgramDev\derbyUser\wisconsin.20050328>SET 
DERBY_INSTALL=c:\PROGRA~2\derby\t
runk

c:\ProgramDev\derbyUser\wisconsin.20050328>set OLD_CLASSPATH=

c:\ProgramDev\derbyUser\wisconsin.20050328>set 
CLASSPATH=c:\PROGRA~2\derby\trunk
\tools\java\jakarta-oro-2.0.8.jar;c:\PROGRA~2\derby\trunk\jars\insane\derbynet.j
ar;c:\PROGRA~2\derby\trunk\jars\insane\derbyTesting.jar;c:\PROGRA~2\derby\trunk\
jars\insane\derby.jar;c:\PROGRA~2\derby\trunk\jars\insane\derbytools.jar;

c:\ProgramDev\derbyUser\wisconsin.20050328>java 
org.apache.derbyTesting.function
Tests.harness.RunTest lang/wisconsin.sql
-- listing properties --
derby.debug.true=
derby.storage.checkpointInterval=100000
derby.language.preloadClasses=true
*** Start: wisconsin jdk1.5.0_02 2005-03-28 01:00:23 ***
*** End:   wisconsin jdk1.5.0_02 2005-03-28 01:01:47 ***

Best regards.

/*

         Tomohito Nakayama
         tomoihto@rose.zero.ad.jp
         tomonaka@basil.ocn.ne.jp

         Naka
         http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~tomohito/TopPage.html

*/
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "TomohitoNakayama" <tomonaka@basil.ocn.ne.jp>
To: "Derby Development" <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2005 1:23 AM
Subject: Re: About improvement of DERBY-134


> Hello.
>
> I come to think that this problem seems to happen because of unwannted 
> default schema name.
>
> Original before patch code to bind order column uses only schema name , 
> tablename and column name , contained sql order by clause.
> If there was no schema name in order clause of processing sql , no schema 
> name , which is null in program , was used to bind.
>
> But now, binding process uses value returned via method of ColumnReference 
> .
> These method returns defalut value ,which is not null , even if user 
> specify no schema name.
>
> That does not always cause bug. That is just well-seen default value 
> processing.
>
> But some processing of derby seems to run on assumpt that if user specify 
> no schema name, null is passed to bind process.
>
> select * from TENKTUP1, (values 1) as t(x)
> where TENKTUP1.unique1 = t.x
> order by TENKTUP1.unique1, t.x
>
> Sql above is one example.
>
> Because "t(x)" is not TABLE in DB , t(x) is out of schema.
> On the other hand "t.x" is handled as "APP.T.x" in ColumnReference.
> This was turned out by tracing running process by jdb as next
>
> main[1] where
>  [1] 
> org.apache.derby.impl.sql.compile.OrderByColumn.resolveColumnReference 
> (OrderByColumn.java:303)
> 
> <ommited.>
> main[1] list
> 299                     throw 
> StandardException.newException(SQLState.LANG_QUALIFIED_COLUMN_NAME_NOT_ALLOWED, 
> fullName);
> 300             }
> 301
> 302             if(cr.getTableNameNode() != null){
> 303 =>                  FromTable fromTable = 
> target.getFromTableByName(cr.getSourceTableName(),
> 304 cr.getSchemaName(),
> 305 true);
> 306                     if(fromTable == null){
> 307                             fromTable = 
> target.getFromTableByName(cr.getSourceTableName(),
> 308 cr.getSchemaName(),
> main[1] eval cr.getSchemaName()
> cr.getSchemaName() = "APP"
> main[1] eval cr.getSourceTableName()
> cr.getSourceTableName() = "T"
>
> Because "t(x)" is out of schema , it is failed to bind "t(x)" with schema 
> name not null.
>
> This "APP" was the unwannted default schema name and which cause the 
> problem.
>
>
> /*
>
>         Tomohito Nakayama
>         tomoihto@rose.zero.ad.jp
>         tomonaka@basil.ocn.ne.jp
>
>         Naka
>         http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~tomohito/TopPage.html
>
> */
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "TomohitoNakayama" <tomonaka@basil.ocn.ne.jp>
> To: "Derby Development" <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 10:30 PM
> Subject: Re: About improvement of DERBY-134
>
>
>>I traced running-process using jdb,
>> and found that FromSubQuery.getFromTableByName(String,String 
>> schemaName,boolean)
>> seems to be failed ....
>>
>>
>> This method invokes FromTable.getFromTableByName(String,String 
>> schemaName,boolean) ,that is method of super class ,
>> with schemaName of not-null value.
>>
>> org.apache.derby.impl.sql.compile.FromSubQuery L169:
>> protected FromTable getFromTableByName(String name, String schemaName, 
>> boolean exactMatch)
>>  throws StandardException
>> {
>>  if (generatedForGroupByClause || generatedForHavingClause)
>>  {
>>   return subquery.getFromTableByName(name, schemaName, exactMatch);
>>  }
>>  else
>>  {
>>   return super.getFromTableByName(name, schemaName, exactMatch); .
>>  }
>> }
>>
>>
>> But FromTable.getFromTableByName(String,String,boolean)  returns null if 
>> schemaName was not null value.
>>
>> org.apache.derby.impl.sql.compile.FromTable L1196:
>> protected FromTable getFromTableByName(String name, String schemaName, 
>> boolean exactMatch)
>>  throws StandardException
>> {
>>  // Only FromBaseTables have schema names
>>  if (schemaName != null)
>>  {
>>   return null;
>>  }
>>
>>  if (getExposedName().equals(name))
>>  {
>>   return this;
>>  }
>>  return null;
>> }
>>
>> As shown above , I found comment "Only FromBaseTables have schema names" 
>> in FromTable.getFromTableByName(String,String,boolean).
>> I think mystery exists around here ....
>>
>>
>> Best regards.
>>
>> /*
>>
>>         Tomohito Nakayama
>>         tomoihto@rose.zero.ad.jp
>>         tomonaka@basil.ocn.ne.jp
>>
>>         Naka
>>         http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~tomohito/TopPage.html
>>
>> */
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "TomohitoNakayama" <tomonaka@basil.ocn.ne.jp>
>> To: "Derby Development" <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 9:33 PM
>> Subject: Re: About improvement of DERBY-134
>>
>>
>>> Hello.
>>>
>>> Now , updating my local working directory, I could found what was 
>>> happend at Jack's site.
>>>
>>> derbylang_report.txt at my site is uploaded next url.
>>> http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~tomohito/20050323/derbylang_report.txt
>>>
>>>
>>> If anyone know, could you please give me some more information about 
>>> next ?
>>>
>>>>I think that there has been some sort of change in the way the Derby 
>>>>handles binding when there are correlation names.
>>>
>>>> It must have been made about a week ago. It has affected some other 
>>>> stuff I am working on. I do not know who made the change, why, or 
>>>> exactly when.
>>>
>>>
>>> The way I bind column in "resolveColumnReference" method was
>>> based on original "bindOrderByColumn" method,
>>> just replacing variable "correlationName" and "schemaName"  to
>>> return value of ColumnReference.getSourceTableName() method and
>>> ColumnReference.getSchemaName() method.
>>>
>>> Considering there were no problem before my patch,
>>> I think there exist some changes in ColumnReference ...
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards.
>>>
>>> /*
>>>
>>>         Tomohito Nakayama
>>>         tomoihto@rose.zero.ad.jp
>>>         tomonaka@basil.ocn.ne.jp
>>>
>>>         Naka
>>>         http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~tomohito/TopPage.html
>>>
>>> */
>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>> From: "Jack Klebanoff" <klebanoff-derby@sbcglobal.net>
>>> To: "Derby Development" <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 3:58 PM
>>> Subject: Re: About improvement of DERBY-134
>>>
>>>
>>>> You may have to do an svn update to bring in the lastest version of the 
>>>> source. I think that there has been some sort of change in the way the 
>>>> Derby handles binding when there are correlation names. Perhaps it is 
>>>> the combination of your changes and these other changes that cause the 
>>>> failure in wisconsin.sql.
>>>>
>>>> It must have been made about a week ago. It has affected some other 
>>>> stuff I am working on. I do not know who made the change, why, or 
>>>> exactly when.
>>>>
>>>> (Hopefully you will not have to do any merging).
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps the lang/orderby.sql tests need to be improved with some cases 
>>>> that use table correlation names in the order by clause. e.g.
>>>>
>>>> select * from (values (2),(1)) as t(x) orderby t.x
>>>> select t1.id,t2.c3 from ta as t1 join tb as t2 on t1.id = t2.id order 
>>>> by t2.c2,t1.id,t2.c3
>>>>
>>>> This is a test of functionality that existed before your changes. Test 
>>>> cases like these probably should have been in lang/orderby.sql before 
>>>> you started.
>>>>
>>>> Jack Klebanoff
>>>>
>>>> TomohitoNakayama wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have tried your small.sql and result was as next.
>>>>>
>>>>> --These are evidence for improvement of 134
>>>>> ij> select * from test_number order by abs(value);
>>>>> VALUE
>>>>> -----------
>>>>> 1
>>>>> 2
>>>>> 3
>>>>>
>>>>> 3 rows selected
>>>>> ij> select * from test_number order by value * -1;
>>>>> VALUE
>>>>> -----------
>>>>> 3
>>>>> 2
>>>>> 1
>>>>>
>>>>> 3 rows selected
>>>>>
>>>>> --This is what was written in small.sql
>>>>> ij> create table TENKTUP1 (
>>>>>                unique1 int not null,
>>>>>                unique2 int not null,
>>>>>                two int,
>>>>>                four int,
>>>>>                ten int,
>>>>>                twenty int,
>>>>>                onePercent int,
>>>>>                tenPercent int,
>>>>>                twentyPercent int,
>>>>>                fiftyPercent int,
>>>>>                unique3 int,
>>>>>                evenOnePercent int,
>>>>>                oddOnePercent int,
>>>>>                stringu1 char(52) not null,
>>>>>                stringu2 char(52) not null,
>>>>>                string4 char(52)
>>>>>        );
>>>>> 0 rows inserted/updated/deleted
>>>>> ij> get cursor c as
>>>>>        'select * from TENKTUP1, (values 1) as t(x)
>>>>>         where TENKTUP1.unique1 = t.x
>>>>>         order by TENKTUP1.unique1, t.x';
>>>>> ij>
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately, I could not found any ...
>>>>>
>>>>> And I attached derbylang_report.txt to this mail.
>>>>> Can you find any clue in it ?
>>>>> Are there any difference between yours ?
>>>>>
>>>>> If could. I want to yourr derbylang_report...
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards.
>>>>>
>>>>> /*
>>>>>
>>>>>         Tomohito Nakayama
>>>>>         tomoihto@rose.zero.ad.jp
>>>>>         tomonaka@basil.ocn.ne.jp
>>>>>
>>>>>         Naka
>>>>>         http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~tomohito/TopPage.html
>>>>>
>>>>> */
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Klebanoff" 
>>>>> <klebanoff-derby@sbcglobal.net>
>>>>> To: "Derby Development" <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 7:33 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: About improvement of DERBY-134
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> java org.apache.derbyTesting.functionTests.harness.RunSuite suiteName
>>>>>> writes a test report in suiteName_report.txt. This describes the
>>>>>> environment, prints a counts of tests that passed and failed, and 
>>>>>> lists
>>>>>> all the differences from expected in the failed tests. You can also 
>>>>>> find
>>>>>> lists of passed and failed tests in suiteName_pass.txt and
>>>>>> suiteName_fail.txt. You can also find outputs, diffs, databases, and
>>>>>> derby.log files for the failed tests, but you have to dig deeper into
>>>>>> the directories.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When I ran the lang/wisconsin.sql test with your patch it failed. The 
>>>>>> query
>>>>>> get cursor c as
>>>>>> 'select * from TENKTUP1, (values 1) as t(x)
>>>>>> where TENKTUP1.unique1 = t.x
>>>>>> order by TENKTUP1.unique1, t.x';
>>>>>> close c;
>>>>>> failed to compile, but the test expected it to run. It worked before
>>>>>> applying the patch, and I believe that it should work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I boiled the problem down to a small SQL file, which I have attached.
>>>>>> That file should run without error under ij as long as database 
>>>>>> "testdb"
>>>>>> does not exist when you start ij.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe that the problem is with the updated bind method in
>>>>>> OrderByNode. It does not seem to be able to handle correlation names
>>>>>> from the FROM list. In the example that failed "t" is not the name of 
>>>>>> an
>>>>>> actual table, but a correlation name used to name the "(values 1)"
>>>>>> virtual table.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I tried changing OrderByColumn.bindOrderByColumn to call
>>>>>> expression.bindExcpression and then eliminating most of the code in
>>>>>> resolveColumnReference. However this does not work either. Then the
>>>>>> statement
>>>>>> values (1,0,1),(1,0,0),(0,0,1),(0,1,0) order by "SQLCol1"
>>>>>> (from the lang/orderby.sql test) fails.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will work on this some more. Perhaps you can continue looking at it 
>>>>>> also.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jack
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TomohitoNakayama wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have tried derbylang test suite , but could not found error which
>>>>>>> was reported .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What I found was just difference around "lang/floattypes.sql".
>>>>>>> I 'm not sure this is error or not yet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Back to reported bug, the next is the test sql in my wisconsin.sql.
>>>>>>> ====================
>>>>>>> -- Values clause is a single-row result set, so should not cause
>>>>>>> optimizer
>>>>>>> -- to require sort.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> get cursor c as
>>>>>>> 'select * from TENKTUP1, (values 1) as t(x)
>>>>>>> where TENKTUP1.unique1 = t.x
>>>>>>> order by TENKTUP1.unique1, t.x';
>>>>>>> close c;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> values SYSCS_UTIL.SYSCS_GET_RUNTIMESTATISTICS();
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> commit;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- Try with a join on unique column and order on non-unique column
>>>>>>> ===================
>>>>>>> I couldn't find difference between what in your mail.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Next is svn-status of my wisconsin.sql.
>>>>>>> ===================
>>>>>>> $ svn status -v wisconsin.sql
>>>>>>> 157254 122528 djd wisconsin.sql
>>>>>>> ===================
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is this caused by versioning problem of wisconsin.sql ...?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tomohito Nakayama
>>>>>>> tomoihto@rose.zero.ad.jp
>>>>>>> tomonaka@basil.ocn.ne.jp
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Naka
>>>>>>> http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~tomohito/TopPage.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "TomohitoNakayama"
>>>>>>> <tomonaka@basil.ocn.ne.jp>
>>>>>>> To: "Derby Development" <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 3:42 PM
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: About improvement of DERBY-134
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you for your checking.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I did'nt know way to test whole sqls.
>>>>>>>> Sorry for insufficient test.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now I will try whole test.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best regards.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tomohito Nakayama
>>>>>>>> tomoihto@rose.zero.ad.jp
>>>>>>>> tomonaka@basil.ocn.ne.jp
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Naka
>>>>>>>> http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~tomohito/TopPage.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Klebanoff"
>>>>>>>> <klebanoff-derby@sbcglobal.net>
>>>>>>>> To: "Derby Development" <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
>>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 9:04 AM
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: About improvement of DERBY-134
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The derbyall test suite found a problem. The lang/wisconsin.sql 
>>>>>>>>> test
>>>>>>>>> failed. The problem output was:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ij> -- Values clause is a single-row result set, so should not 
>>>>>>>>> cause
>>>>>>>>> optimizer
>>>>>>>>> -- to require sort.
>>>>>>>>> get cursor c as
>>>>>>>>> 'select * from TENKTUP1, (values 1) as t(x)
>>>>>>>>> where TENKTUP1.unique1 = t.x
>>>>>>>>> order by TENKTUP1.unique1, t.x';
>>>>>>>>> ERROR 42X10: 'T' is not an exposed table name in the scope in 
>>>>>>>>> which it
>>>>>>>>> appears.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This error is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There must be a problem in the way that the patch binds the ORDER 
>>>>>>>>> BY
>>>>>>>>> expressions. I don't have time to look more deeply into it now.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You should probably run at least the derbylang test suite before
>>>>>>>>> submitting a patch for ORDER BY.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To do this, change into an empty directory and run
>>>>>>>>> java org.apache.derbyTesting.functionTests.harness.RunSuite 
>>>>>>>>> derbylang
>>>>>>>>> The derbylang suite takes about 90 minutes on my laptop. The 
>>>>>>>>> derbyall
>>>>>>>>> suite takes 5 or 6 hours.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In order to run just the wisconsin.sql test change into an empty
>>>>>>>>> directory and run
>>>>>>>>> java org.apache.derbyTesting.functionTests.harness.RunTest
>>>>>>>>> lang/wisconsin.sql
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jack Klebanoff
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> TomohitoNakayama wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hello.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thank for your checking.
>>>>>>>>>> I have solved the 2 problems.
>>>>>>>>>> Attached file is new patch.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best regards.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Tomohito Nakayama
>>>>>>>>>> tomoihto@rose.zero.ad.jp
>>>>>>>>>> tomonaka@basil.ocn.ne.jp
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Naka
>>>>>>>>>> http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~tomohito/TopPage.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Klebanoff"
>>>>>>>>>> <klebanoff-derby@sbcglobal.net>
>>>>>>>>>> To: "Derby Development" <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 10:51 AM
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: About improvement of DERBY-134
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The new patch looks much better. However, I found two problems, 
>>>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>>>> serious and the other minor.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The serious problem is that INTERSECT no longer works. The
>>>>>>>>>>> lang/intersect.sql test (part of the derbylang suite) fails. The
>>>>>>>>>>> problem
>>>>>>>>>>> is in the
>>>>>>>>>>> org.apache.derby.impl.sql.compile.IntersectOrExceptNode.pushOrderingDown
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> method. It attempts to create OrderByColumns by calling
>>>>>>>>>>> nf.getNode( C_NodeTypes.ORDER_BY_COLUMN,
>>>>>>>>>>> ReuseFactory.getInteger( intermediateOrderByColumns[i] + 1),
>>>>>>>>>>> cm)
>>>>>>>>>>> This used to work. Now OrderByColumn.init throws a 
>>>>>>>>>>> ClassCastException
>>>>>>>>>>> because it expects to be passed a ValueNode, not an Integer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> IntersectOrExceptNode.pushOrderingDown has to be changed to pass 
>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> ValueNode. I think that
>>>>>>>>>>> nf.getNode( C_NodeTypes.ORDER_BY_COLUMN,
>>>>>>>>>>> nf.getNode( C_NodeTypes.INT_CONSTANT_NODE,
>>>>>>>>>>> ReuseFactory.getInteger( intermediateOrderByColumns[i] + 1),
>>>>>>>>>>> cm),
>>>>>>>>>>> cm)
>>>>>>>>>>> works.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The minor problem is that the javadoc for OrderByColumn.init( 
>>>>>>>>>>> Object
>>>>>>>>>>> expression) documents a "dummy" parameter that no longer exists.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jack Klebanoff
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> TomohitoNakayama wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have finished coding and testing in orderby.sql.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure test is enough.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you please review it ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tomohito Nakayama
>>>>>>>>>>>> tomoihto@rose.zero.ad.jp
>>>>>>>>>>>> tomonaka@basil.ocn.ne.jp
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Naka
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~tomohito/TopPage.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Satheesh Bandaram"
>>>>>>>>>>>> <satheesh@sourcery.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>> To: "Derby Development" <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2005 6:59 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: About improvement of DERBY-134
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Tomohito Nakayama,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just wanted to check how you are progressing on the patch 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> update,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> following comments by myself and Jack. I do think you are 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> working
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> important enhancement that not only yourself but other 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> developpers
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressed interest in. I strongly encourage you to continue
>>>>>>>>>>>>> working on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this and post any questions or comments you might have. You 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pretty
>>>>>>>>>>>>> close to addressing all issues.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am willing to help, if you need any, to continue taking this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> further.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Satheesh
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TomohitoNakayama wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your reviewing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> About 1:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Handling any sortKey as expression is better structure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A little challenging but worth for it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will try.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> About 2:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Uh oh.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bug about starting value of element indexing in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ResultColumnList ....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Test of comma separated lists of ORDER BY expressions in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orderby.sql
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was needed.....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> About 3:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems that it is certainly needed to add test case .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will continue this issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tomohito Nakayama
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tomoihto@rose.zero.ad.jp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tomonaka@basil.ocn.ne.jp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Naka
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~tomohito/TopPage.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Klebanoff"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <klebanoff-derby@sbcglobal.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: "Derby Development" <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 8:37 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: About improvement of DERBY-134
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TomohitoNakayama wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have put some LOOKAHEAD to sqlgrammer.jj and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> add some test pattern to orderby.sql.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would someone review patch please ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tomohito Nakayama
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tomoihto@rose.zero.ad.jp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tomonaka@basil.ocn.ne.jp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Naka
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~tomohito/TopPage.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "TomohitoNakayama"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <tomonaka@basil.ocn.ne.jp>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: "Derby Development" <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 4:09 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: About improvement of DERBY-134
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mistaken.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOOKAHEAD()....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tomohito Nakayama
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tomoihto@rose.zero.ad.jp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tomonaka@basil.ocn.ne.jp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Naka
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~tomohito/TopPage.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "TomohitoNakayama"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <tomonaka@basil.ocn.ne.jp>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: "Derby Development" <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 3:42 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: About improvement of DERBY-134
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank's for your reviewing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Grammer ambiguity is very critical problem ....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will try to put LOOKUP() and consider about testing..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #World is not simple as I wish to be.....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tomohito Nakayama
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tomoihto@rose.zero.ad.jp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tomonaka@basil.ocn.ne.jp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Naka
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~tomohito/TopPage.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: Satheesh Bandaram
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Derby Development
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 4:10 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: About improvement of DERBY-134
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the patch is a good start. But more work needs to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Based on a quick review, some of the items to be 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (there may be more)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Grammar ambiguity. SortKey() has grammar ambiguity the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is written. Since orderby expression and orderby column 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start with an identifier, this causes ambiguity. Need to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rewrite or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> add lookup to avoid this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Current patch doesn't seem to support all expressions, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ex:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> select i
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from t1 order by i/2. So, needs more work.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Add more test cases and test outputs to show changed 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could add test cases to orderby.sql test that is already
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionTests/tests/lang.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do encourage you to continue work on this ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Satheesh
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TomohitoNakayama wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I tried to solve DERBY-134.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Patch is attached to this mail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tomohito Nakayama
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tomoihto@rose.zero.ad.jp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tomonaka@basil.ocn.ne.jp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Naka
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~tomohito/TopPage.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "TomohitoNakayama"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <tomonaka@basil.ocn.ne.jp>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: "Derby Development" <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 5:33 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: About improvement of DERBY-134
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Woops.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mistaken.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's "DERBY-124 Sorted string columns are sorted in a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sensitive way"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's "DERBY-134 Sorted string columns are sorted in a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sensitive way"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tomohito Nakayama
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tomoihto@rose.zero.ad.jp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tomonaka@basil.ocn.ne.jp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Naka
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~tomohito/TopPage.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "TomohitoNakayama"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <tomonaka@basil.ocn.ne.jp>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 4:35 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: About improvement of DERBY-134
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My name is Naka.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm very newbie in derby community.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm now seeing report for derby in ASF Jira.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And found a interesting issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's "DERBY-124 Sorted string columns are sorted in a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sensitive way"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This issue seems to mean that we can't use complex item 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clause.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #That title was difficult to understand a bit ....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Solving this isn't useful?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Especially when we manipulate DBMS by hand.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What I think we need to do is as next:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Allow additiveExpression() in sortKey() in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "sqlgrammer.jj". 2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Make OrderByColumn class to support additiveExpression.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tomohito Nakayama
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tomoihto@rose.zero.ad.jp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tomonaka@basil.ocn.ne.jp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Naka
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~tomohito/TopPage.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have worked on Derby/Cloudscape for a few years and have 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one or two ORDER BY bugs in the past. I have reviewed your 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patch.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> close, but I have some problems with it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. sqlgrammar.jj. I think that creating a new method,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isNonReservedKeyword() to determine whether a token is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-reserved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keyword or not, is a maintenance problem. Whenever we add a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-reserved keyword we must add it to the list of tokens, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonReservedKeyword(), and now to isNonReservedKeyword(). 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to add
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it in two places is difficult enough to discover or 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isNonReservedKeyword then we should find a way of combining
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonReservedKeyword and isNonReservedKeyword so that only one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeps the list of non-reserved key words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not necessary for the parser to recognize 3 cases of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ORDER BY
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sort
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> key type. A column name is just one kind of <expression>. If 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parser
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> treats it as an expression we should still get the right
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ordering. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think that it would better if the parser did so. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OrderByColumn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> class
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can special case a simple column reference expression, as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> optimization. This considerably simplifies parsing sort 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keys.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only sort key type that has to be handled specially is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integer constant. That specifies one of the select list 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> columns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sort key. This case can be recognized in the parser, as is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patch, or it can be recognized in OrderByColumn. In this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parser always creates OrderByColumn nodes with the sort key 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression (a ValueNode). At bind time OrderByColumn can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether the sort key expression is an integer constant, and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> treat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it as a column position.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The two alternatives differ in the way that they treat 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions like "ORDER BY 2-1". The patch orders the rows 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constant 1, which is not usefull. With the patch "ORDER BY 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2-1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ASC"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "ORDER BY 2-1 DESC" produce the same ordering. If 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OrderByColumn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> treated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an integer constant sort key expression as a result column
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> position
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "ORDER BY 2-1" would cause the rows to be ordered on the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> column, which I think is more usefull.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. OrderByColumn. I think that there is a mistake in the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patch to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bindOrderByColumn method of class OrderByColumn.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The new code is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }else if(expression != null){
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ResultColumn col = null;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int i = 0;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for(i = 0;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i < targetCols.size();
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i ++){
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> col = targetCols.getOrderByColumn(i);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if(col != null &&
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> col.getExpression() == expression){
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> break;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Method ResultColumnList.getOrderByColumn( int) uses 1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indexing. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patch assumes 0 indexing. So the loop really should be 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "for( i
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> = 1;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i <=
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> targetCols.size(); i++)".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Java likes 0 indexing while SQL likes 1 indexing. So some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Derby code use 0 indexing while others use 1 indexing. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resulting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confusion has caught most of us at one time or another).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The result is that when the sort key is an expression
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OrderByColumn.pullUpOrderByColumn adds it to the end of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but OrderByColumn.bindOrderByColumn doesn't find it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OrderByColumn.bindOrderByColumn tests whether the second 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> last
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> column in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the target list is orderable. This is usually not right. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Consider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following SQL:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create table tblob( id int, b blob(1000));
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> select id,b from tblob order by abs(id);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> select b,id from tblob order by abs(id);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first SELECT raises the error "ERROR X0X67: Columns of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'BLOB'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may not be used in CREATE INDEX, ORDER BY, GROUP BY, UNION,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INTERSECT,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EXCEPT or DISTINCT, because comparisons are not supported 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type". The second SELECT executes properly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Testing. I would like to see some additional tests: the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above; ORDER BY expressions combined with ASC and DESC, to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ensure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the compiler handles ASC and DESC after a sort key, and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comma
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lists of ORDER BY expressions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jack
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> connect 'jdbc:derby:testdb;create=true';
>>>>>> create table TENKTUP1 (
>>>>>> unique1 int not null,
>>>>>> unique2 int not null,
>>>>>> two int,
>>>>>> four int,
>>>>>> ten int,
>>>>>> twenty int,
>>>>>> onePercent int,
>>>>>> tenPercent int,
>>>>>> twentyPercent int,
>>>>>> fiftyPercent int,
>>>>>> unique3 int,
>>>>>> evenOnePercent int,
>>>>>> oddOnePercent int,
>>>>>> stringu1 char(52) not null,
>>>>>> stringu2 char(52) not null,
>>>>>> string4 char(52)
>>>>>> );
>>>>>>
>>>>>> get cursor c as
>>>>>> 'select * from TENKTUP1, (values 1) as t(x)
>>>>>> where TENKTUP1.unique1 = t.x
>>>>>> order by TENKTUP1.unique1, t.x';
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>>>> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.0 - Release Date: 2005/03/21
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>>> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.0 - Release Date: 2005/03/21
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>>> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.0 - Release Date: 2005/03/21
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.0 - Release Date: 2005/03/21
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.0 - Release Date: 2005/03/21
>>
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.0 - Release Date: 2005/03/21
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.3 - Release Date: 2005/03/25
> 

Mime
View raw message