db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David Butterworth (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Created: (DERBY-3603) 'IN' clause ignores valid results, incorrect qualifier handling suspected
Date Tue, 08 Apr 2008 02:15:25 GMT
'IN' clause ignores valid results, incorrect qualifier handling suspected
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 Key: DERBY-3603
                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3603
             Project: Derby
          Issue Type: Bug
          Components: SQL
    Affects Versions: 10.3.2.1, 10.4.1.1
            Reporter: David Butterworth


Derbys' 'IN' clause is returning different results depending on which side of a joined table
I am doing my 'IN' comparison against. This only occurs when the number of items within the
'IN' clause is greater then 1.

This behaviour was also confirmed by Bryan Pendleton in this thread:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/db-derby-user/200804.mbox/%3c47FA5974.2060705@amberpoint.com%3e

Using the test database attatched the following 2 queries produce the issue:

ij>  select count(*) FROM spike.accounts account, spike.admin_units admin_unit,
    spike.bookings booking
    WHERE booking.child_id = 2 AND
    admin_unit.admin_unit_id IN (1,21) AND
    booking.booking_date_time_out >= 20080331000000 AND
    booking.booking_date_time_in <= 20080406235900 AND
    account.account_id = booking.account_id AND
    admin_unit.admin_unit_id = account.admin_unit_id;
1          
-----------
2          

1 row selected
ij> select count(*) FROM spike.accounts account, spike.admin_units admin_unit,
    spike.bookings booking
    WHERE booking.child_id = 2 AND
    account.admin_unit_id IN (1,21) AND
    booking.booking_date_time_out >= 20080331000000 AND
    booking.booking_date_time_in <= 20080406235900 AND
    account.account_id = booking.account_id AND
    admin_unit.admin_unit_id = account.admin_unit_id;
1          
-----------
3          

1 row selected
ij> 

The only difference between the 2 statements is which side of a join the 'IN' clause is matched
against.

Bryan performed some initial testing and stated the following:

--------------------- SNIP ------------------------

Interestingly, although the actual results do NOT contain any values
for admin_unit_id = 21, if I change the query to:

    admin_unit.admin_unit_id IN (1)
or
    account.admin_unit_id IN (1)

then the problem disappears -- I get 3 rows for both queries.

I also ran query plans for both the queries (in the IN (1,21) case)
and have pasted the (simplified) query plans at the end of this message.

I notice that in the case where the query gives 2 rows, which is
when we specify admin_unit.admin_unit_id in (1,21), the admin_unit_id
index scan output in the query plan contains:

           qualifiers:
Column[0][0] Id: 0
Operator: =
Ordered nulls: false
Unknown return value: false
Negate comparison result: false

However, in the case where the query gives 3 rows, which is
when we specify account.admin_unit_id in (1,21), the admin_unit_id
index scan output in the query plan contains:

           qualifiers:
None

I think it is the presence/absence of this qualifier on the query
scan which is causing the different results in the query, as in
the first case we see:

           Number of rows qualified=2
           Number of rows visited=3

but in the second case we see:

           Number of rows qualified=3
           Number of rows visited=3

I definitely don't have any explanation for why you are getting
this odd behavior; it certainly seems like a bug to me.

-------------END SNIP -----------------------


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


Mime
View raw message