On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Boxuan Zhai <bxzhai2010@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 9:54 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I think that MERGE is supposed to trigger one rule for each row in the
>> source data. So:
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 8:20 PM, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> > MERGE INTO Stock t
>> > USING (SELECT * FROM Stock WHERE item_id=10) AS s
>> > ON s.item_id=t.item_id
>> > WHEN MATCHED THEN UPDATE SET balance=s.balance + 1
>> > WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN INSERT VALUES (10,1)
>> > ;
>> >
>> > This works fine, and updates the matching row:
>> >
>> > item_id | balance
>> > ---------+---------
>> > 20 | 1900
>> > 10 | 2201
>>
>> Here you have one row of source data, and you got one action (the WHEN
>> MATCHED case).
>>
>> > But if I give it a key that doesn't exist instead:
>> >
>> > MERGE INTO Stock t
>> > USING (SELECT * FROM Stock WHERE item_id=30) AS s
>> > ON s.item_id=t.item_id
>> > WHEN MATCHED THEN UPDATE SET balance=s.balance + 1
>> > WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN INSERT VALUES (30,1)
>> > ;
>> >
>> > This doesn't execute the NOT MATCHED case and INSERT the way I expected
>> > it
>> > to. It just gives back "MERGE 0".
>>
>> Here you have no rows of source data (the USING (SELECT ...) doesn't
>> return anything, since no rows exist) so nothing happens.
>>
>
> Yes.
> The MERGE process is based on a left join between the source table and
> target table.
> Since here the source table is empty, no join is carried, and thus no MERGE
> action is taken.
> But, is it correct logically? I mean, should we insert some rows in the
> above example rather than do nothing?
I don't think so. I think the right way to write UPSERT is something
along the lines of:
MERGE INTO Stock t USING (VALUES (10, 1)) s(item_id, balance) ON
s.item_id = t.item_id ...
(untested)
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company