xref: /sqlite-3.40.0/test/whereF.test (revision 8210233c)

# 2012 November 9
#
# The author disclaims copyright to this source code.  In place of
# a legal notice, here is a blessing:
#
#    May you do good and not evil.
#    May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others.
#    May you share freely, never taking more than you give.
#
#***********************************************************************
#
# Test cases for query planning decisions.


#
# The tests in this file demonstrate the behaviour of the query planner
# in determining the order in which joined tables are scanned.
#
# Assume there are two tables being joined - t1 and t2. Each has a cost
# if it is the outer loop, and a cost if it is the inner loop. As follows:
#
#   t1(outer) - cost of scanning t1 as the outer loop.
#   t1(inner) - cost of scanning t1 as the inner loop.
#   t2(outer) - cost of scanning t2 as the outer loop.
#   t2(inner) - cost of scanning t2 as the inner loop.
#
# Depending on the order in which the planner nests the scans, the total
# cost of the join query is one of:
#
#   t1(outer) * t2(inner)
#   t2(outer) * t1(inner)
#
# The tests in this file attempt to verify that the planner nests joins in
# the correct order when the following are true:
#
#   + (t1(outer) * t2(inner)) > (t1(inner) * t2(outer)
#   +  t1(outer) < t2(outer)
#
# In other words, when the best overall query plan has t2 as the outer loop,
# but when the outer loop is considered independent of the inner, t1 is the
# most efficient choice.
#
# In order to make them more predictable, automatic indexes are turned off for
# the tests in this file.
#

set testdir [file dirname $argv0]
source $testdir/tester.tcl
set testprefix whereF

do_execsql_test 1.0 {
  PRAGMA automatic_index = 0;
  CREATE TABLE t1(a, b, c);
  CREATE TABLE t2(d, e, f);
  CREATE UNIQUE INDEX i1 ON t1(a);
  CREATE UNIQUE INDEX i2 ON t2(d);
} {}

foreach {tn sql} {
  1 "SELECT * FROM t1,           t2 WHERE t1.a=t2.e AND t2.d<t1.b AND t1.c!=10"
  2 "SELECT * FROM t2,           t1 WHERE t1.a=t2.e AND t2.d<t1.b AND t1.c!=10"
  3 "SELECT * FROM t2 CROSS JOIN t1 WHERE t1.a=t2.e AND t2.d<t1.b AND t1.c!=10"
} {
  do_test 1.$tn {
    db eval "EXPLAIN QUERY PLAN $sql"
   } {/.*SCAN t2\y.*SEARCH t1\y.*/}
}

do_execsql_test 2.0 {
  DROP TABLE t1;
  DROP TABLE t2;
  CREATE TABLE t1(a, b, c);
  CREATE TABLE t2(d, e, f);

  CREATE UNIQUE INDEX i1 ON t1(a);
  CREATE UNIQUE INDEX i2 ON t1(b);
  CREATE UNIQUE INDEX i3 ON t2(d);
} {}

foreach {tn sql} {
  1 "SELECT * FROM t1,           t2 WHERE t1.a>? AND t2.d>t1.c AND t1.b=t2.e"
  2 "SELECT * FROM t2,           t1 WHERE t1.a>? AND t2.d>t1.c AND t1.b=t2.e"
  3 "SELECT * FROM t2 CROSS JOIN t1 WHERE t1.a>? AND t2.d>t1.c AND t1.b=t2.e"
} {
  do_test 2.$tn {
    db eval "EXPLAIN QUERY PLAN $sql"
   } {/.*SCAN t2\y.*SEARCH t1\y.*/}
}

do_execsql_test 3.0 {
  DROP TABLE t1;
  DROP TABLE t2;
  CREATE TABLE t1(a, b, c);
  CREATE TABLE t2(d, e, f);

  CREATE UNIQUE INDEX i1 ON t1(a, b);
  CREATE INDEX i2 ON t2(d);
} {}

foreach {tn sql} {
  1 {SELECT t1.a, t1.b, t2.d, t2.e FROM t1, t2
     WHERE t2.d=t1.b AND t1.a=(t2.d+1) AND t1.b = (t2.e+1)}

  2 {SELECT t1.a, t1.b, t2.d, t2.e FROM t2, t1
     WHERE t2.d=t1.b AND t1.a=(t2.d+1) AND t1.b = (t2.e+1)}

  3 {SELECT t1.a, t1.b, t2.d, t2.e FROM t2 CROSS JOIN t1
     WHERE t2.d=t1.b AND t1.a=(t2.d+1) AND t1.b = (t2.e+1)}
} {
  do_test 3.$tn {
    db eval "EXPLAIN QUERY PLAN $sql"
   } {/.*SCAN t2\y.*SEARCH t1\y.*/}
}

do_execsql_test 4.0 {
  CREATE TABLE t4(a,b,c,d,e, PRIMARY KEY(a,b,c));
  CREATE INDEX t4adc ON t4(a,d,c);
  CREATE UNIQUE INDEX t4aebc ON t4(a,e,b,c);
  EXPLAIN QUERY PLAN SELECT rowid FROM t4 WHERE a=? AND b=?;
} {/a=. AND b=./}

#-------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Test the following case:
#
#   ... FROM t1, t2 WHERE (
#     t2.rowid = +t1.rowid OR (t2.f2 = t1.f1 AND t1.f1!=-1)
#   )
#
# where there is an index on t2(f2). The planner should use "t1" as the
# outer loop. The inner loop, on "t2", is an OR optimization. One pass
# for:
#
#     t2.rowid = $1
#
# and another for:
#
#     t2.f2=$1 AND $1!=-1
#
# the test is to ensure that on the second pass, the ($1!=-1) condition
# is tested before any seek operations are performed - i.e. outside of
# the loop through the f2=$1 range of the t2(f2) index.
#
reset_db
do_execsql_test 5.0 {
  CREATE TABLE t1(f1);
  CREATE TABLE t2(f2);
  CREATE INDEX t2f ON t2(f2);

  INSERT INTO t1 VALUES(-1);
  INSERT INTO t1 VALUES(-1);
  INSERT INTO t1 VALUES(-1);
  INSERT INTO t1 VALUES(-1);

  WITH w(i) AS (
    SELECT 1 UNION ALL SELECT i+1 FROM w WHERE i<1000
  )
  INSERT INTO t2 SELECT -1 FROM w;
}

do_execsql_test 5.1 {
  SELECT count(*) FROM t1, t2 WHERE t2.rowid = +t1.rowid
} {4}
do_test 5.2 { expr [db status vmstep]<200 } 1

do_execsql_test 5.3 {
  SELECT count(*) FROM t1, t2 WHERE (
    t2.rowid = +t1.rowid OR t2.f2 = t1.f1
  )
} {4000}
do_test 5.4 { expr [db status vmstep]>1000 } 1

do_execsql_test 5.5 {
  SELECT count(*) FROM t1, t2 WHERE (
    t2.rowid = +t1.rowid OR (t2.f2 = t1.f1 AND t1.f1!=-1)
  )
} {4}
do_test 5.6 { expr [db status vmstep]<200 } 1

# 2017-09-04 ticket b899b6042f97f52d
# Segfault on correlated subquery...
#
ifcapable json1&&vtab {
  do_execsql_test 6.1 {
    CREATE TABLE t6(x);
    SELECT * FROM t6 WHERE 1 IN (SELECT value FROM json_each(x));
  } {}

  do_execsql_test 6.2 {
    DROP TABLE t6;
    CREATE TABLE t6(a,b,c);
    INSERT INTO t6 VALUES
     (0,null,'{"a":0,"b":[3,4,5],"c":{"x":4.5,"y":7.8}}'),
     (1,null,'{"a":1,"b":[3,4,5],"c":{"x":4.5,"y":7.8}}'),
     (2,null,'{"a":9,"b":[3,4,5],"c":{"x":4.5,"y":7.8}}');
    SELECT * FROM t6
     WHERE (EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM json_each(t6.c) AS x WHERE x.value=1));
  } {1 {} {{"a":1,"b":[3,4,5],"c":{"x":4.5,"y":7.8}}}}

  # Another test case derived from a posting by Wout Mertens on the
  # sqlite-users mailing list on 2017-10-04.
  do_execsql_test 6.3 {
    DROP TABLE IF EXISTS t;
    CREATE TABLE t(json JSON);
    SELECT * FROM t
     WHERE(EXISTS(SELECT 1 FROM json_each(t.json,"$.foo") j
                   WHERE j.value = 'meep'));
  } {}
  do_execsql_test 6.4 {
    INSERT INTO t VALUES('{"xyzzy":null}');
    INSERT INTO t VALUES('{"foo":"meep","other":12345}');
    INSERT INTO t VALUES('{"foo":"bingo","alt":5.25}');
    SELECT * FROM t
     WHERE(EXISTS(SELECT 1 FROM json_each(t.json,"$.foo") j
                   WHERE j.value = 'meep'));
  } {{{"foo":"meep","other":12345}}}
}

# 2018-01-27
# Ticket https://sqlite.org/src/tktview/ec32177c99ccac2b180fd3ea2083
# Incorrect result when using the new OR clause factoring optimization
#
# This is the original test case as reported on the sqlite-users mailing
# list
#
do_execsql_test 7.1 {
  DROP TABLE IF EXISTS cd;
  CREATE TABLE cd ( cdid INTEGER PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL, genreid integer );
  CREATE INDEX cd_idx_genreid ON cd (genreid);
  INSERT INTO cd  ( cdid, genreid ) VALUES
                     ( 1,    1 ),
                     ( 2, NULL ),
                     ( 3, NULL ),
                     ( 4, NULL ),
                     ( 5, NULL );

  SELECT cdid
    FROM cd me
  WHERE 2 > (
    SELECT COUNT( * )
      FROM cd rownum__emulation
    WHERE
      (
        me.genreid IS NOT NULL
          AND
        rownum__emulation.genreid IS NULL
      )
        OR
      (
        me.genreid IS NOT NULL
          AND
        rownum__emulation.genreid IS NOT NULL
          AND
        rownum__emulation.genreid < me.genreid
      )
        OR
      (
        ( me.genreid = rownum__emulation.genreid OR ( me.genreid IS NULL
  AND rownum__emulation.genreid IS NULL ) )
          AND
        rownum__emulation.cdid > me.cdid
      )
  );
} {4 5}

# Simplified test cases from the ticket
#
do_execsql_test 7.2 {
  DROP TABLE IF EXISTS t1;
  DROP TABLE IF EXISTS t2;
  CREATE TABLE t1(a INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, b);
  INSERT INTO t1(a,b) VALUES(1,1);
  CREATE TABLE t2(aa INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, bb);
  INSERT INTO t2(aa,bb) VALUES(1,1),(2,NULL),(3,NULL);
  SELECT (
    SELECT COUNT(*) FROM t2
     WHERE ( t1.b IS NOT NULL AND t2.bb IS NULL )
        OR ( t2.bb < t1.b )
        OR ( t1.b IS t2.bb AND t2.aa > t1.a )
    )
    FROM t1;
} {2}

# The fix for ticket ec32177c99ccac2b180fd3ea2083 only makes a difference
# in the output when there is a TERM_VNULL entry in the WhereClause array.
# And TERM_VNULL entries are only generated when compiling with
# SQLITE_ENABLE_STAT4.  Nevertheless, it is correct that TERM_VIRTUAL terms
# should not participate in the factoring optimization.  In all cases other
# than TERM_VNULL, participation is harmless, but it does consume a few
# extra CPU cycles.
#
# The following test verifies that the TERM_VIRTUAL terms resulting from
# a GLOB operator do not appear anywhere in the generated code.  This
# confirms that the problem is fixed, even on builds that omit STAT4.
#
do_execsql_test 7.3 {
  DROP TABLE IF EXISTS t1;
  DROP TABLE IF EXISTS t2;
  CREATE TABLE t1(a INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, b TEXT);
  INSERT INTO t1(a,b) VALUES(1,'abcxyz');
  CREATE TABLE t2(aa INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, bb TEXT);
  INSERT INTO t2(aa,bb) VALUES(1,'abc'),(2,'wxyz'),(3,'xyz');
  CREATE INDEX t2bb ON t2(bb);
  EXPLAIN SELECT (
    SELECT COUNT(*) FROM t2
     WHERE ( t1.b GLOB 'a*z' AND t2.bb='xyz' )
        OR ( t2.bb = t1.b )
        OR ( t2.aa = t1.a )
    )
    FROM t1;
} {~/ (Lt|Ge) /}

finish_test