Обсуждение: Re: consttraints.source
Hi, I'm seeing similar problems, mainly due to failure to sort correctly even though there is an "order by" clause. I did a few tests and found that the sort sort seemed to fail when there were multiple columns in the "order by" clause. (Not conclusive) I don't know when it 1st appeared as I've been trying to compile on SPARC-Linux for the past few attempts and this is the 1st time I've had a fully working package to run the regression tests on!! Thanks, Keith. Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> > emkxp01@mtcc.demon.co.uk > > > > Bruce, > > > > Just running the regression tests on the latest CVS on SPARC-Linux!! > > > > Appart from several other ordering and precision errors I'm seeing > > errors in constraints tests due to output/constraints.source not > > being updated for the new error messages. > > I have just fixed many of these WARN problems. I am looking at the new > results. The first problem: > > ====== boolean ====== > 166,168d165 > < |f |f > < |f |f > < |f |f > 170a168 > > |f |f > 173a172 > > |f |f > 176a176 > > |f |f > > is because the query has no ORDER BY. > > The second problem looks serious: > > QUERY: SET geqo TO 'off'; > QUERY: SELECT '' AS thirtysix, p1.f1 AS point1, p2.f1 AS point2, p1.f1<-> p2.f$ > FROM POINT_TBL p1, POINT_TBL p2 > ORDER BY dist, point1 using <<, point2 using <<; > thirtysix|point1 |point2 | dist > ---------+----------+----------+---------------- > |(10,10) |(-10,0) |22.3606797749979 > |(0,0) |(-10,0) | 10 > > The 'dist' is not being ordered. > > In geometry we have: > > 104c103 > < |(0,0) |[(0,0),(6,6)] |(-0,0) > --- > > |(0,0) |[(0,0),(6,6)] |(0,0) > > I am happy to see the -0 changed to zero, but this may be just on my > platform. Also: > > < |(-0,0),(-20,-20) > --- > > |(0,0),(-20,-20) > 213c212 > < |(-0,2),(-14,0) > --- > > |(0,2),(-14,0) > 221c220 > < |(14,-0),(0,-34) > --- > > |(14,0),(0,-34) > 236c235 > > We also have broken sorting in timespan: > > QUERY: SELECT '' AS fortyfive, r1.*, r2.* > FROM TIMESPAN_TBL r1, TIMESPAN_TBL r2 > WHERE r1.f1 > r2.f1 > ORDER BY r1.f1, r2.f1; > fortyfive|f1 |f1 > ---------+-----------------------------+----------------------------- > |@ 6 years |@ 14 secs ago > |@ 5 mons |@ 14 secs ago > |@ 5 mons 12 hours |@ 14 secs ago > > How long has this been broken? Any idea on a cause. Obviously it is a > sorting issue, but where? > > -- > Bruce Momjian maillist@candle.pha.pa.us >
> > Hi, > > I'm seeing similar problems, mainly due to failure to sort correctly > even though there is an "order by" clause. > > I did a few tests and found that the sort sort seemed to fail when there > were multiple columns in the "order by" clause. (Not conclusive) This is a huge help. I think I have found it. I just overhauled the readfunc/outfunc code, so it was now very clear that was in the Query.sortClause. Your hint that the it fails when there is more than one sort identifier was the trick. > > I don't know when it 1st appeared as I've been trying to compile on > SPARC-Linux for the past few attempts and this is the 1st time I've > had a fully working package to run the regression tests on!! > > Thanks, > Keith. > > > Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> > > emkxp01@mtcc.demon.co.uk > > > > > > Bruce, > > > > > > Just running the regression tests on the latest CVS on SPARC-Linux!! > > > > > > Appart from several other ordering and precision errors I'm seeing > > > errors in constraints tests due to output/constraints.source not > > > being updated for the new error messages. > > > > I have just fixed many of these WARN problems. I am looking at the new > > results. The first problem: > > > > ====== boolean ====== > > 166,168d165 > > < |f |f > > < |f |f > > < |f |f > > 170a168 > > > |f |f > > 173a172 > > > |f |f > > 176a176 > > > |f |f > > > > is because the query has no ORDER BY. > > > > The second problem looks serious: > > > > QUERY: SET geqo TO 'off'; > > QUERY: SELECT '' AS thirtysix, p1.f1 AS point1, p2.f1 AS point2, p1.f1<-> > p2.f$ > > FROM POINT_TBL p1, POINT_TBL p2 > > ORDER BY dist, point1 using <<, point2 using <<; > > thirtysix|point1 |point2 | dist > > ---------+----------+----------+---------------- > > |(10,10) |(-10,0) |22.3606797749979 > > |(0,0) |(-10,0) | 10 > > > > The 'dist' is not being ordered. > > > > In geometry we have: > > > > 104c103 > > < |(0,0) |[(0,0),(6,6)] |(-0,0) > > --- > > > |(0,0) |[(0,0),(6,6)] |(0,0) > > > > I am happy to see the -0 changed to zero, but this may be just on my > > platform. Also: > > > > < |(-0,0),(-20,-20) > > --- > > > |(0,0),(-20,-20) > > 213c212 > > < |(-0,2),(-14,0) > > --- > > > |(0,2),(-14,0) > > 221c220 > > < |(14,-0),(0,-34) > > --- > > > |(14,0),(0,-34) > > 236c235 > > > > We also have broken sorting in timespan: > > > > QUERY: SELECT '' AS fortyfive, r1.*, r2.* > > FROM TIMESPAN_TBL r1, TIMESPAN_TBL r2 > > WHERE r1.f1 > r2.f1 > > ORDER BY r1.f1, r2.f1; > > fortyfive|f1 |f1 > > ---------+-----------------------------+----------------------------- > > |@ 6 years |@ 14 secs ago > > |@ 5 mons |@ 14 secs ago > > |@ 5 mons 12 hours |@ 14 secs ago > > > > How long has this been broken? Any idea on a cause. Obviously it is a > > sorting issue, but where? > > > > -- > > Bruce Momjian maillist@candle.pha.pa.us > > > > -- Bruce Momjian maillist@candle.pha.pa.us
> > Hi, > > I'm seeing similar problems, mainly due to failure to sort correctly > even though there is an "order by" clause. > > I did a few tests and found that the sort sort seemed to fail when there > were multiple columns in the "order by" clause. (Not conclusive) > > I don't know when it 1st appeared as I've been trying to compile on > SPARC-Linux for the past few attempts and this is the 1st time I've > had a fully working package to run the regression tests on!! Sort is now fixed. When I added UNION, I needed to add UNIQUE from optimizer, so I added a SortClause node to the routine. Turns out it was NULL'ing it for every sort field. Should work now. -- Bruce Momjian maillist@candle.pha.pa.us
> > I'm seeing similar problems, mainly due to failure to sort correctly
> > even though there is an "order by" clause.
> >
> > I did a few tests and found that the sort sort seemed to fail when there
> > were multiple columns in the "order by" clause. (Not conclusive)
>
> This is a huge help. I think I have found it. I just overhauled the
> readfunc/outfunc code, so it was now very clear that was in the
> Query.sortClause.
>
> Your hint that the it fails when there is more than one sort identifier
> was the trick.
Ah, Keith beat me to the test :) fwiw, the problem was introduced between 971227
and 980101...
- Tom