1461728d3Sdrh# 2011 August 13 2461728d3Sdrh# 3461728d3Sdrh# The author disclaims copyright to this source code. In place of 4461728d3Sdrh# a legal notice, here is a blessing: 5461728d3Sdrh# 6461728d3Sdrh# May you do good and not evil. 7461728d3Sdrh# May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others. 8461728d3Sdrh# May you share freely, never taking more than you give. 9461728d3Sdrh# 10461728d3Sdrh#*********************************************************************** 11461728d3Sdrh# 12461728d3Sdrh# This file implements tests for SQLite library. The focus of the tests 13175b8f06Sdrh# in this file is testing the capabilities of sqlite_stat4. 14461728d3Sdrh# 15461728d3Sdrh 16461728d3Sdrhset testdir [file dirname $argv0] 17461728d3Sdrhsource $testdir/tester.tcl 18461728d3Sdrh 19175b8f06Sdrhifcapable !stat4 { 20461728d3Sdrh finish_test 21461728d3Sdrh return 22461728d3Sdrh} 23461728d3Sdrh 24461728d3Sdrhset testprefix analyze8 25461728d3Sdrh 26461728d3Sdrhproc eqp {sql {db db}} { 27461728d3Sdrh uplevel execsql [list "EXPLAIN QUERY PLAN $sql"] $db 28461728d3Sdrh} 29461728d3Sdrh 30461728d3Sdrh# Scenario: 31461728d3Sdrh# 32461728d3Sdrh# Two indices. One has mostly singleton entries, but for a few 33461728d3Sdrh# values there are hundreds of entries. The other has 10-20 34461728d3Sdrh# entries per value. 35461728d3Sdrh# 36461728d3Sdrh# Verify that the query planner chooses the first index for the singleton 37461728d3Sdrh# entries and the second index for the others. 38461728d3Sdrh# 39461728d3Sdrhdo_test 1.0 { 40461728d3Sdrh db eval { 41461728d3Sdrh CREATE TABLE t1(a,b,c,d); 42461728d3Sdrh CREATE INDEX t1a ON t1(a); 43461728d3Sdrh CREATE INDEX t1b ON t1(b); 44461728d3Sdrh CREATE INDEX t1c ON t1(c); 45461728d3Sdrh } 46461728d3Sdrh for {set i 0} {$i<1000} {incr i} { 47461728d3Sdrh if {$i%2==0} {set a $i} {set a [expr {($i%8)*100}]} 48461728d3Sdrh set b [expr {$i/10}] 49461728d3Sdrh set c [expr {$i/8}] 50461728d3Sdrh set c [expr {$c*$c*$c}] 51461728d3Sdrh db eval {INSERT INTO t1 VALUES($a,$b,$c,$i)} 52461728d3Sdrh } 53461728d3Sdrh db eval {ANALYZE} 54461728d3Sdrh} {} 55461728d3Sdrh 56461728d3Sdrh# The a==100 comparison is expensive because there are many rows 57461728d3Sdrh# with a==100. And so for those cases, choose the t1b index. 58461728d3Sdrh# 59461728d3Sdrh# Buf ro a==99 and a==101, there are far fewer rows so choose 60461728d3Sdrh# the t1a index. 61461728d3Sdrh# 62461728d3Sdrhdo_test 1.1 { 63461728d3Sdrh eqp {SELECT * FROM t1 WHERE a=100 AND b=55} 64*8210233cSdrh} {/*SEARCH t1 USING INDEX t1b (b=?)*/} 65461728d3Sdrhdo_test 1.2 { 66461728d3Sdrh eqp {SELECT * FROM t1 WHERE a=99 AND b=55} 67*8210233cSdrh} {/*SEARCH t1 USING INDEX t1a (a=?)*/} 68461728d3Sdrhdo_test 1.3 { 69461728d3Sdrh eqp {SELECT * FROM t1 WHERE a=101 AND b=55} 70*8210233cSdrh} {/*SEARCH t1 USING INDEX t1a (a=?)*/} 71461728d3Sdrhdo_test 1.4 { 72461728d3Sdrh eqp {SELECT * FROM t1 WHERE a=100 AND b=56} 73*8210233cSdrh} {/*SEARCH t1 USING INDEX t1b (b=?)*/} 74461728d3Sdrhdo_test 1.5 { 75461728d3Sdrh eqp {SELECT * FROM t1 WHERE a=99 AND b=56} 76*8210233cSdrh} {/*SEARCH t1 USING INDEX t1a (a=?)*/} 77461728d3Sdrhdo_test 1.6 { 78461728d3Sdrh eqp {SELECT * FROM t1 WHERE a=101 AND b=56} 79*8210233cSdrh} {/*SEARCH t1 USING INDEX t1a (a=?)*/} 80461728d3Sdrhdo_test 2.1 { 81461728d3Sdrh eqp {SELECT * FROM t1 WHERE a=100 AND b BETWEEN 50 AND 54} 82*8210233cSdrh} {/*SEARCH t1 USING INDEX t1b (b>? AND b<?)*/} 83461728d3Sdrh 84461728d3Sdrh# There are many more values of c between 0 and 100000 than there are 85461728d3Sdrh# between 800000 and 900000. So t1c is more selective for the latter 86461728d3Sdrh# range. 87461728d3Sdrh# 886cb8d76cSdan# Test 3.2 is a little unstable. It depends on the planner estimating 896d3f91d0Sdrh# that (b BETWEEN 30 AND 34) will match more rows than (c BETWEEN 906cb8d76cSdan# 800000 AND 900000). Which is a pretty close call (50 vs. 32), so 916cb8d76cSdan# the planner could get it wrong with an unlucky set of samples. This 92f00e9025Sdan# case happens to work, but others ("b BETWEEN 40 AND 44" for example) 936cb8d76cSdan# will fail. 946cb8d76cSdan# 956cb8d76cSdando_execsql_test 3.0 { 966d3f91d0Sdrh SELECT count(*) FROM t1 WHERE b BETWEEN 30 AND 34; 976cb8d76cSdan SELECT count(*) FROM t1 WHERE c BETWEEN 0 AND 100000; 986cb8d76cSdan SELECT count(*) FROM t1 WHERE c BETWEEN 800000 AND 900000; 996cb8d76cSdan} {50 376 32} 100461728d3Sdrhdo_test 3.1 { 1016d3f91d0Sdrh eqp {SELECT * FROM t1 WHERE b BETWEEN 30 AND 34 AND c BETWEEN 0 AND 100000} 102*8210233cSdrh} {/*SEARCH t1 USING INDEX t1b (b>? AND b<?)*/} 103461728d3Sdrhdo_test 3.2 { 104461728d3Sdrh eqp {SELECT * FROM t1 1056d3f91d0Sdrh WHERE b BETWEEN 30 AND 34 AND c BETWEEN 800000 AND 900000} 106*8210233cSdrh} {/*SEARCH t1 USING INDEX t1c (c>? AND c<?)*/} 107461728d3Sdrhdo_test 3.3 { 108461728d3Sdrh eqp {SELECT * FROM t1 WHERE a=100 AND c BETWEEN 0 AND 100000} 109*8210233cSdrh} {/*SEARCH t1 USING INDEX t1a (a=?)*/} 110461728d3Sdrhdo_test 3.4 { 111461728d3Sdrh eqp {SELECT * FROM t1 112461728d3Sdrh WHERE a=100 AND c BETWEEN 800000 AND 900000} 113*8210233cSdrh} {/*SEARCH t1 USING INDEX t1c (c>? AND c<?)*/} 114461728d3Sdrh 115461728d3Sdrhfinish_test 116