Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 40496 invoked from network); 11 Apr 2009 01:23:36 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 11 Apr 2009 01:23:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 86207 invoked by uid 500); 11 Apr 2009 01:23:36 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-dev-archive@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 86148 invoked by uid 500); 11 Apr 2009 01:23:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: Delivered-To: mailing list derby-dev@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 86129 invoked by uid 99); 11 Apr 2009 01:23:36 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 11 Apr 2009 01:23:36 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2000.0 required=10.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [140.211.11.140] (HELO brutus.apache.org) (140.211.11.140) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 11 Apr 2009 01:23:35 +0000 Received: from brutus (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by brutus.apache.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E101F234C051 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:23:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <177568822.1239412994907.JavaMail.jira@brutus> Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:23:14 -0700 (PDT) From: "Mamta A. Satoor (JIRA)" To: derby-dev@db.apache.org Subject: [jira] Commented: (DERBY-3926) Incorrect ORDER BY caused by index In-Reply-To: <587695671.1225270724527.JavaMail.jira@brutus> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3926?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12698038#action_12698038 ] Mamta A. Satoor commented on DERBY-3926: ---------------------------------------- Yes, even if the cost calculation for a plan is wrong, Derby should not return wrong resutls and hence for this jira entry, at this point, it might not be worth it to pursue the lead if the cost calculation is wrong. I did find one consistently reproducible SQL which will cause the problem behavior whether we are in the same session where the tables/indexes were created or whether we start a fresh database session. So, once the database has been setup, one can open a new ij session and consistently repro the problem case with following optimizer overrides (this way, one does not have to setup the whole database in the same session as the origina problem SQL to repro the problem) SELECT table1.id, m0.value, m1.value FROM --DERBY-PROPERTIES joinOrder=FIXED table2 m1 -- DERBY-PROPERTIES index=key3 , table2 m0 -- DERBY-PROPERTIES index=key3 , table1 WHERE table1.id=m0.id AND m0.name='PageSequenceId' AND table1.id=m1.id AND m1.name='PostComponentId' AND m1.value='21857' ORDER BY m0.value; So, the important thing is have both m1 and m0 use the index KEY3 which is on the column value on which ordering is happening for table m0. Now that I have a simple repro case (ie I don't have to go through countless iteration of optimizer for all different join orders and different predicate pulling down in different join orders), I can focus on the problem join order. > Incorrect ORDER BY caused by index > ---------------------------------- > > Key: DERBY-3926 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3926 > Project: Derby > Issue Type: Bug > Components: SQL > Affects Versions: 10.1.3.3, 10.2.3.0, 10.3.3.1, 10.4.2.0 > Reporter: Tars Joris > Attachments: derby-reproduce.zip > > > I think I found a bug in Derby that is triggered by an index on a large column: VARCHAR(1024). I know it is generally not a good idea to have an index on such a large column. > I have a table (table2) with a column "value", my query orders on this column but the result is not sorted. It is sorted if I remove the index on that column. > The output of the attached script is as follows (results should be ordered on the middle column): > ID |VALUE |VALUE > ---------------------------------------------- > 2147483653 |000002 |21857 > 2147483654 |000003 |21857 > 4294967297 |000001 |21857 > While I would expect: > ID |VALUE |VALUE > ---------------------------------------------- > 4294967297 |000001 |21857 > 2147483653 |000002 |21857 > 2147483654 |000003 |21857 > This is the definition: > CREATE TABLE table1 (id BIGINT NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY(id)); > CREATE INDEX key1 ON table1(id); > CREATE TABLE table2 (id BIGINT NOT NULL, name VARCHAR(40) NOT NULL, value VARCHAR(1024), PRIMARY KEY(id, name)); > CREATE UNIQUE INDEX key2 ON table2(id, name); > CREATE INDEX key3 ON table2(value); > This is the query: > SELECT table1.id, m0.value, m1.value > FROM table1, table2 m0, table2 m1 > WHERE table1.id=m0.id > AND m0.name='PageSequenceId' > AND table1.id=m1.id > AND m1.name='PostComponentId' > AND m1.value='21857' > ORDER BY m0.value; > The bug can be reproduced by just executing the attached script with the ij-tool. > Note that the result of the query becomes correct when enough data is changed. This prevented me from creating a smaller example. > See the attached file "derby-reproduce.zip" for sysinfo, derby.log and script.sql. > Michael Segel pointed out: > "It looks like its hitting the index ordering on id,name from table 2 and is ignoring the order by clause." -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.