summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/test/in3.test
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'test/in3.test')
-rw-r--r--test/in3.test289
1 files changed, 289 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/test/in3.test b/test/in3.test
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..012c9b4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/test/in3.test
@@ -0,0 +1,289 @@
+# 2007 November 29
+#
+# 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.
+#
+#***********************************************************************
+# This file tests the optimisations made in November 2007 of expressions
+# of the following form:
+#
+# <value> IN (SELECT <column> FROM <table>)
+#
+# $Id: in3.test,v 1.5 2008/08/04 03:51:24 danielk1977 Exp $
+
+set testdir [file dirname $argv0]
+source $testdir/tester.tcl
+
+ifcapable !subquery {
+ finish_test
+ return
+}
+
+# Return the number of OpenEphemeral instructions used in the
+# implementation of the sql statement passed as a an argument.
+#
+proc nEphemeral {sql} {
+ set nEph 0
+ foreach op [execsql "EXPLAIN $sql"] {
+ if {$op eq "OpenEphemeral"} {incr nEph}
+ }
+ set nEph
+}
+
+# This proc works the same way as execsql, except that the number
+# of OpenEphemeral instructions used in the implementation of the
+# statement is inserted into the start of the returned list.
+#
+proc exec_neph {sql} {
+ return [concat [nEphemeral $sql] [execsql $sql]]
+}
+
+do_test in3-1.1 {
+ execsql {
+ CREATE TABLE t1(a PRIMARY KEY, b);
+ INSERT INTO t1 VALUES(1, 2);
+ INSERT INTO t1 VALUES(3, 4);
+ INSERT INTO t1 VALUES(5, 6);
+ }
+} {}
+
+# All of these queries should avoid using a temp-table:
+#
+do_test in3-1.2 {
+ exec_neph { SELECT rowid FROM t1 WHERE rowid IN (SELECT rowid FROM t1); }
+} {0 1 2 3}
+do_test in3-1.3 {
+ exec_neph { SELECT a FROM t1 WHERE a IN (SELECT a FROM t1); }
+} {0 1 3 5}
+do_test in3-1.4 {
+ exec_neph { SELECT rowid FROM t1 WHERE rowid+0 IN (SELECT rowid FROM t1); }
+} {0 1 2 3}
+do_test in3-1.5 {
+ exec_neph { SELECT a FROM t1 WHERE a+0 IN (SELECT a FROM t1); }
+} {0 1 3 5}
+
+# Because none of the sub-select queries in the following statements
+# match the pattern ("SELECT <column> FROM <table>"), the following do
+# require a temp table.
+#
+do_test in3-1.6 {
+ exec_neph { SELECT rowid FROM t1 WHERE rowid IN (SELECT rowid+0 FROM t1); }
+} {1 1 2 3}
+do_test in3-1.7 {
+ exec_neph { SELECT a FROM t1 WHERE a IN (SELECT a+0 FROM t1); }
+} {1 1 3 5}
+do_test in3-1.8 {
+ exec_neph { SELECT a FROM t1 WHERE a IN (SELECT a FROM t1 WHERE 1); }
+} {1 1 3 5}
+do_test in3-1.9 {
+ exec_neph { SELECT a FROM t1 WHERE a IN (SELECT a FROM t1 GROUP BY a); }
+} {1 1 3 5}
+
+# This should not use a temp-table. Even though the sub-select does
+# not exactly match the pattern "SELECT <column> FROM <table>", in
+# this case the ORDER BY is a no-op and can be ignored.
+do_test in3-1.10 {
+ exec_neph { SELECT a FROM t1 WHERE a IN (SELECT a FROM t1 ORDER BY a); }
+} {0 1 3 5}
+
+# These do use the temp-table. Adding the LIMIT clause means the
+# ORDER BY cannot be ignored.
+do_test in3-1.11 {
+ exec_neph {SELECT a FROM t1 WHERE a IN (SELECT a FROM t1 ORDER BY a LIMIT 1)}
+} {1 1}
+do_test in3-1.12 {
+ exec_neph {
+ SELECT a FROM t1 WHERE a IN (SELECT a FROM t1 ORDER BY a LIMIT 1 OFFSET 1)
+ }
+} {1 3}
+
+# Has to use a temp-table because of the compound sub-select.
+#
+ifcapable compound {
+ do_test in3-1.13 {
+ exec_neph {
+ SELECT a FROM t1 WHERE a IN (
+ SELECT a FROM t1 UNION ALL SELECT a FROM t1
+ )
+ }
+ } {1 1 3 5}
+}
+
+# The first of these queries has to use the temp-table, because the
+# collation sequence used for the index on "t1.a" does not match the
+# collation sequence used by the "IN" comparison. The second does not
+# require a temp-table, because the collation sequences match.
+#
+do_test in3-1.14 {
+ exec_neph { SELECT a FROM t1 WHERE a COLLATE nocase IN (SELECT a FROM t1) }
+} {1 1 3 5}
+do_test in3-1.15 {
+ exec_neph { SELECT a FROM t1 WHERE a COLLATE binary IN (SELECT a FROM t1) }
+} {0 1 3 5}
+
+# Neither of these queries require a temp-table. The collation sequence
+# makes no difference when using a rowid.
+#
+do_test in3-1.16 {
+ exec_neph {SELECT a FROM t1 WHERE a COLLATE nocase IN (SELECT rowid FROM t1)}
+} {0 1 3}
+do_test in3-1.17 {
+ exec_neph {SELECT a FROM t1 WHERE a COLLATE binary IN (SELECT rowid FROM t1)}
+} {0 1 3}
+
+# The following tests - in3.2.* - test a bug that was difficult to track
+# down during development. They are not particularly well focused.
+#
+do_test in3-2.1 {
+ execsql {
+ DROP TABLE IF EXISTS t1;
+ CREATE TABLE t1(w int, x int, y int);
+ CREATE TABLE t2(p int, q int, r int, s int);
+ }
+ for {set i 1} {$i<=100} {incr i} {
+ set w $i
+ set x [expr {int(log($i)/log(2))}]
+ set y [expr {$i*$i + 2*$i + 1}]
+ execsql "INSERT INTO t1 VALUES($w,$x,$y)"
+ }
+ set maxy [execsql {select max(y) from t1}]
+ db eval { INSERT INTO t2 SELECT 101-w, x, $maxy+1-y, y FROM t1 }
+} {}
+do_test in3-2.2 {
+ execsql {
+ SELECT rowid
+ FROM t1
+ WHERE rowid IN (SELECT rowid FROM t1 WHERE rowid IN (1, 2));
+ }
+} {1 2}
+do_test in3-2.3 {
+ execsql {
+ select rowid from t1 where rowid IN (-1,2,4)
+ }
+} {2 4}
+do_test in3-2.4 {
+ execsql {
+ SELECT rowid FROM t1 WHERE rowid IN
+ (select rowid from t1 where rowid IN (-1,2,4))
+ }
+} {2 4}
+
+#-------------------------------------------------------------------------
+# This next block of tests - in3-3.* - verify that column affinity is
+# correctly handled in cases where an index might be used to optimise
+# an IN (SELECT) expression.
+#
+do_test in3-3.1 {
+ catch {execsql {
+ DROP TABLE t1;
+ DROP TABLE t2;
+ }}
+
+ execsql {
+
+ CREATE TABLE t1(a BLOB, b NUMBER ,c TEXT);
+ CREATE UNIQUE INDEX t1_i1 ON t1(a); /* no affinity */
+ CREATE UNIQUE INDEX t1_i2 ON t1(b); /* numeric affinity */
+ CREATE UNIQUE INDEX t1_i3 ON t1(c); /* text affinity */
+
+ CREATE TABLE t2(x BLOB, y NUMBER, z TEXT);
+ CREATE UNIQUE INDEX t2_i1 ON t2(x); /* no affinity */
+ CREATE UNIQUE INDEX t2_i2 ON t2(y); /* numeric affinity */
+ CREATE UNIQUE INDEX t2_i3 ON t2(z); /* text affinity */
+
+ INSERT INTO t1 VALUES(1, 1, 1);
+ INSERT INTO t2 VALUES('1', '1', '1');
+ }
+} {}
+
+do_test in3-3.2 {
+ # No affinity is applied before comparing "x" and "a". Therefore
+ # the index can be used (the comparison is false, text!=number).
+ exec_neph { SELECT x IN (SELECT a FROM t1) FROM t2 }
+} {0 0}
+do_test in3-3.3 {
+ # Logically, numeric affinity is applied to both sides before
+ # the comparison. Therefore it is possible to use index t1_i2.
+ exec_neph { SELECT x IN (SELECT b FROM t1) FROM t2 }
+} {0 1}
+do_test in3-3.4 {
+ # No affinity is applied before the comparison takes place. Making
+ # it possible to use index t1_i3.
+ exec_neph { SELECT x IN (SELECT c FROM t1) FROM t2 }
+} {0 1}
+
+do_test in3-3.5 {
+ # Numeric affinity should be applied to each side before the comparison
+ # takes place. Therefore we cannot use index t1_i1, which has no affinity.
+ exec_neph { SELECT y IN (SELECT a FROM t1) FROM t2 }
+} {1 1}
+do_test in3-3.6 {
+ # Numeric affinity is applied to both sides before
+ # the comparison. Therefore it is possible to use index t1_i2.
+ exec_neph { SELECT y IN (SELECT b FROM t1) FROM t2 }
+} {0 1}
+do_test in3-3.7 {
+ # Numeric affinity is applied before the comparison takes place.
+ # Making it impossible to use index t1_i3.
+ exec_neph { SELECT y IN (SELECT c FROM t1) FROM t2 }
+} {1 1}
+
+#---------------------------------------------------------------------
+#
+# Test using a multi-column index.
+#
+do_test in3-4.1 {
+ execsql {
+ CREATE TABLE t3(a, b, c);
+ CREATE UNIQUE INDEX t3_i ON t3(b, a);
+ }
+
+ execsql {
+ INSERT INTO t3 VALUES(1, 'numeric', 2);
+ INSERT INTO t3 VALUES(2, 'text', 2);
+ INSERT INTO t3 VALUES(3, 'real', 2);
+ INSERT INTO t3 VALUES(4, 'none', 2);
+ }
+} {}
+do_test in3-4.2 {
+ exec_neph { SELECT 'text' IN (SELECT b FROM t3) }
+} {0 1}
+do_test in3-4.3 {
+ exec_neph { SELECT 'TEXT' COLLATE nocase IN (SELECT b FROM t3) }
+} {1 1}
+do_test in3-4.4 {
+ # A temp table must be used because t3_i.b is not guaranteed to be unique.
+ exec_neph { SELECT b FROM t3 WHERE b IN (SELECT b FROM t3) }
+} {1 none numeric real text}
+do_test in3-4.5 {
+ execsql { CREATE UNIQUE INDEX t3_i2 ON t3(b) }
+ exec_neph { SELECT b FROM t3 WHERE b IN (SELECT b FROM t3) }
+} {0 none numeric real text}
+do_test in3-4.6 {
+ execsql { DROP INDEX t3_i2 }
+} {}
+
+# The following two test cases verify that ticket #2991 has been fixed.
+#
+do_test in3-5.1 {
+ execsql {
+ CREATE TABLE Folders(
+ folderid INTEGER PRIMARY KEY,
+ parentid INTEGER,
+ rootid INTEGER,
+ path VARCHAR(255)
+ );
+ }
+} {}
+do_test in3-5.2 {
+ catchsql {
+ DELETE FROM Folders WHERE folderid IN
+ (SELECT folderid FROM Folder WHERE path LIKE 'C:\MP3\Albums\' || '%');
+ }
+} {1 {no such table: Folder}}
+
+finish_test
generated by cgit v1.2.3 (git 2.25.1) at 2024-06-01 21:41:08 +0000