Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Message-ID: <33497825.1176332312698.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:58:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Bryan Pendleton (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: derby-dev@db.apache.org
Subject: [jira] Commented: (DERBY-2526) Wrong query results due to column
 ordering in UNION view
In-Reply-To: <17995563.1175729012257.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2526?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12488220 ] 

Bryan Pendleton commented on DERBY-2526:
----------------------------------------

Thanks Myrna for helping me sort out those test failures somewhat. Now I think I am down to:
- lang/outerjoin.sql
- lang/subqueryFlattening.sql
- lang/wisconsin.java
- lang/DistinctTest
- lang/UpdateCursorTest 

The first 3 tests contain query plans in their output, and the query plans have changed
as a result of my patch. This requires some study, but it is possible that the new results
are correct.

DistinctTest and UpdateCursorTest appear to be getting assertion failures.

I'll continue to study these failures and see what I can learn.


> 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: 10.0.2.1, 10.1.3.1, 10.2.2.0, 10.3.0.0
>            Reporter: Bryan Pendleton
>         Assigned To: Bryan Pendleton
>         Attachments: badQuery.log, derby-2526.sql, firstTryPatch.diff, 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.