From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 01D4326B1B for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 13:44:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing.freelists.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uyzYdIY9_zVV for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 13:44:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpng3.m.smailru.net (smtpng3.m.smailru.net [94.100.177.149]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTPS id 4730926952 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 13:44:19 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\)) Subject: [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH 2/2] sql: fix code generation for aggregate in HAVING clause From: "n.pettik" In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 21:33:02 +0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1BCDA75B-2817-4A40-9F7D-40E7919BDD98@tarantool.org> References: <750fa247185a20047e0ebd3242768ec81f12ad9f.1550768589.git.korablev@tarantool.org> Sender: tarantool-patches-bounce@freelists.org Errors-to: tarantool-patches-bounce@freelists.org Reply-To: tarantool-patches@freelists.org List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: tarantool-patches List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: To: tarantool-patches@freelists.org Cc: Vladislav Shpilevoy > On 25 Feb 2019, at 15:58, Vladislav Shpilevoy = wrote: > Thanks for the patch! See 3 comments below. > On 21/02/2019 21:01, Nikita Pettik wrote: >> When we allowed using HAVING clause without GROUP BY (b40f2443a), one >> possible combination was forgotten to be tested: >> SELECT 1 FROM te40 HAVING SUM(s1) < 0; >> In other words, resulting set contains no aggregates, but HAVING does >> contain. >=20 > 1. We have these tests: select5-9.10, select5-9.11, select5-9.12. They = all > have no aggregates in the result set, but have in HAVING. So that was = not > a problem. Problem was that we forgot to test a false condition. Ok, slightly fixed commit message. >> In this case no byte-code related to aggregate execution is >> emitted at all. Hence, query above equals to simple SELECT 1; >> Unfortunately, result of such query is the same when condition under >> HAVING clause is satisfied. >=20 > 2. Did you mean **not** satisfied? Yep, thx: sql: fix code generation for aggregate in HAVING clause When we allowed using HAVING clause without GROUP BY (b40f2443a), one possible combination was forgotten to be tested: SELECT 1 FROM te40 HAVING SUM(s1) < 0; -- And SUM(s1) >=3D 0, i.e. HAVING condition is false. In other words, resulting set contains no aggregates, but HAVING does contain, but condition is false. In this case no byte-code related to aggregate execution is emitted at all. Hence, query above equals to simple SELECT 1; Unfortunately, result of such query is the same when condition under HAVING clause is unsatisfied. To fix this behaviour, = it is enough to indicate to byte-code generator that we should analyze aggregates not only in ORDER BY clauses, but also in HAVING clause. Closes #3932 Follow-up #2364 >> To fix this behaviour, it is enough to >> indicate to byte-code generator that we should analyze aggregates not >> only in ORDER BY clauses, but also in HAVING clause. >> Closes #3932 >> Follow-up #2364 >> --- >> src/box/sql/resolve.c | 10 +++++++--- >> test/sql-tap/select5.test.lua | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++++- >> 2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> diff --git a/src/box/sql/resolve.c b/src/box/sql/resolve.c >> index bc208cc9d..e9a1b09f7 100644 >> --- a/src/box/sql/resolve.c >> +++ b/src/box/sql/resolve.c >> @@ -1290,12 +1290,16 @@ resolveSelectStep(Walker * pWalker, Select * = p) >> return WRC_Abort; >> } >> - /* If there are no aggregate functions in the = result-set, and no GROUP BY >> - * expression, do not allow aggregates in any of the = other expressions. >> + /* >> + * If there are no aggregate functions in the >> + * result-set, and no GROUP BY or HAVING >> + * expression, do not allow aggregates in any >> + * of the other expressions. >> */ >> assert((p->selFlags & SF_Aggregate) =3D=3D 0); >> pGroupBy =3D p->pGroupBy; >> - if (pGroupBy || (sNC.ncFlags & NC_HasAgg) !=3D 0) { >> + if ((pGroupBy !=3D NULL || p->pHaving !=3D NULL) || >=20 > 3. Why do you need the braces around > "pGroupBy !=3D NULL || p->pHaving !=3D NULL=E2=80=9D ? Doesn=E2=80=99t matter much. Fixed: diff --git a/src/box/sql/resolve.c b/src/box/sql/resolve.c index e9a1b09f7..0184bc047 100644 --- a/src/box/sql/resolve.c +++ b/src/box/sql/resolve.c @@ -1298,7 +1298,7 @@ resolveSelectStep(Walker * pWalker, Select * p) */ assert((p->selFlags & SF_Aggregate) =3D=3D 0); pGroupBy =3D p->pGroupBy; - if ((pGroupBy !=3D NULL || p->pHaving !=3D NULL) || + if (pGroupBy !=3D NULL || p->pHaving !=3D NULL || (sNC.ncFlags & NC_HasAgg) !=3D 0) { assert(NC_MinMaxAgg =3D=3D SF_MinMaxAgg); p->selFlags |=3D