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 291F627446 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 13:01:40 -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 9lE5UjhTzYIi for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 13:01:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpng2.m.smailru.net (smtpng2.m.smailru.net [94.100.179.3]) (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 54E5727207 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 13:01:39 -0500 (EST) From: Nikita Pettik Subject: [tarantool-patches] [PATCH 2/2] sql: fix code generation for aggregate in HAVING clause Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 21:01:35 +0300 Message-Id: <750fa247185a20047e0ebd3242768ec81f12ad9f.1550768589.git.korablev@tarantool.org> In-Reply-To: References: In-Reply-To: References: 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: v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org, Nikita Pettik 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. 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. 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) == 0); pGroupBy = p->pGroupBy; - if (pGroupBy || (sNC.ncFlags & NC_HasAgg) != 0) { + if ((pGroupBy != NULL || p->pHaving != NULL) || + (sNC.ncFlags & NC_HasAgg) != 0) { assert(NC_MinMaxAgg == SF_MinMaxAgg); p->selFlags |= SF_Aggregate | (sNC.ncFlags & NC_MinMaxAgg); diff --git a/test/sql-tap/select5.test.lua b/test/sql-tap/select5.test.lua index 0d132dbf8..0e3efb5fa 100755 --- a/test/sql-tap/select5.test.lua +++ b/test/sql-tap/select5.test.lua @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ #!/usr/bin/env tarantool test = require("sqltester") -test:plan(44) +test:plan(46) --!./tcltestrunner.lua -- 2001 September 15 @@ -538,5 +538,28 @@ test:do_execsql_test( -- }) +-- gh-3932: bytecode is not emmited if aggregate is placed only +-- in HAVING clause. +-- +test:do_execsql_test( + "select5-9.13", + [[ + SELECT 1 FROM te40 HAVING SUM(s1) < 0; + ]], { + -- + -- +}) + +test:do_execsql_test( + "select5-9.13.2", + [[ + CREATE TABLE jj (s1 INT, s2 CHAR(1), PRIMARY KEY(s1)); + INSERT INTO jj VALUES(1, 'A'), (2, 'a'); + SELECT 1 FROM jj HAVING avg(s2) = 1 AND avg(s2) = 0; + ]], { + -- + -- +}) + test:finish_test() -- 2.15.1