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 Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:10:54 GMT
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

Mime
View raw message