Re: [GENERAL] is (not) distinct from

On 02/28/2017 12:08 AM, Johann Spies wrote:
> When I query table a I get 18 rows.
> The same query on table b results in 28 rows.
>
> Both tables have the same structure.
>
> When I export the results to csv-files and do a diff it confirms that
> all 18 rows from a are also in b. Table b has 10 new rows.
>
> When I combine these queries and use "is (not) distinct from"
> I get strange results:
>
> with a as (select citing_article, cited_article, pubyear, year_cited,
> cited_author, cited_title, cited_work, doi
> from wos_2017_1.citation
> where citing_article='abcdefg'
> order by 3,4,5,6,8),
> b as (
> select citing_article, cited_article, pubyear, year_cited, cited_author,
> cited_title, cited_work, doi
> from wos_2017_1.citationbackup
> where citing_article='abcdefg'
> order by 3,4,5,6,8)
> select distinct b.* from b , a
> where
> ( B.citing_article,
>              B.cited_article,
>              B.pubyear,
>              B.year_cited,
>              B.cited_author,
>              B.cited_title,
>              B.cited_work,
> B.doi)
>  is distinct from
>         (A.citing_article,
>              A.cited_article,
>              A.pubyear,
>              A.year_cited,
>              A.cited_author,
>              A.cited_title,
>              A.cited_work, A.doi)
>
> The result of this query is 28 rows - thus that of b.
> I expected this to be 10.
>
> If I change the query to "is not distinct from" it results in 18 rows
> which is what I would have expected.

I have not worked through all this but at first glance I suspect:

select distinct b.* from b ...

is distinct from ...

constitutes a double negative.

What happens if you eliminate the first distinct?


>
> Regards
> Johann.
> --
> Because experiencing your loyal love is better than life itself,
> my lips will praise you.  (Psalm 63:3)


--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com