db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "A B (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (DERBY-2526) Wrong query results due to column ordering in UNION view
Date Fri, 06 Apr 2007 16:41:32 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2526?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12487271

A B commented on DERBY-2526:

One thing that stands out here: estimated row count that is less than 1.0.  This means that
whenever the row counts are multiplied through, we'll actually estimate fewer rows than we
should., which could throw off estimates.  I've noticed this oddity a couple of times myself
when working with the optimizer--most recently while looking at DERBY-1905.

I've always thought this was strange.  I wonder if you put a check for this at the end of
FromBaseTable.estimateCost()--ex. set anything with a row count less than 1 to be 1.0--what
would happen?  Could be a red herring, but should be easy enough to check...

@@ -1832,6 +1832,12 @@
 		/* Put the base predicates back in the predicate list */
+if (costEstimate.rowCount() < 1.0)
+// System.out.println("-=- Oops! " + costEstimate.rowCount() + " -- " + costEstimate.singleScanRowCount());
+costEstimate.setCost(costEstimate.getEstimatedCost(), 1.0d, costEstimate.singleScanRowCount());
 		return costEstimate;

Proverbial (and potentialy irrelevant) 2c.

> Wrong query results due to column ordering in UNION view
> --------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: DERBY-2526
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2526
>             Project: Derby
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: SQL
>    Affects Versions:,,,
>            Reporter: Bryan Pendleton
>         Attachments: badQuery.log, derby-2526.sql, goodQuery.log
> I think both select statements in the attached repro script should return 1 row, but
in fact the first statement returns 1 row and the second returns zero rows.
> The only difference between the two statements is that the columns in the UNION view
are listed in a different order (bvw vs. bvw2).
> This seems like a bug to me; the order of the columns in the view definition shouldn't
matter, should it? 
> As Army noted on the derby-dev list, the fact that this reproduces with 10.0 means that
it is not caused by some of the 10.2 optimizer changes. Something else is going wrong.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.

View raw message