Re: ask for review of MERGE

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.

> Since I wasn't sure if the whole "subquery in the USING clause" case was
> really implemented fully, I then tried to do this with something more like
> the working regression test examples.  I expected this to do the same thing
> as the first example:
>
> MERGE INTO Stock t
>  USING Stock s
>  ON s.item_id=10 AND s.item_id=t.item_id
>  WHEN MATCHED THEN UPDATE SET balance=s.balance + 1
>  WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN INSERT VALUES (10,1)
>  ;
>
> But it gives back this:
>
> ERROR:  duplicate key value violates unique constraint "stock_item_id_key"
> DETAIL:  Key (item_id)=(10) already exists.

Here you have two rows of source data.  The ON clause represents the
join condition.  The item_id=10 row matches - so you get an update,
presumably, though we can't see that as things turn out - and the
item_id=20 row doesn't match - so you try to insert (10, 1), which is
a duplicate key, thus the error.

> Can't tell from that whether it's hitting the MATCHED or NOT MATCHED side of
> things to generate that.  But it doesn't work any better if you give it an
> example that doesn't exist:
>
> MERGE INTO Stock t
>  USING Stock s
>  ON s.item_id=30 AND s.item_id=t.item_id
>  WHEN MATCHED THEN UPDATE SET balance=s.balance + 1
>  WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN INSERT VALUES (30,1)
>  ;
>
> ERROR:  duplicate key value violates unique constraint "stock_item_id_key"
> DETAIL:  Key (item_id)=(30) already exists.

In this case neither row of the source data matches the join condition
(s.item_id=30 might as well be constant FALSE as far as the test data
is concerned) so you attempt to execute the NOT MATCHED side twice.
So this one also looks correct to me.