From: dan Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 10:00:59 +0000 (+0000) Subject: Update test script analyze3.test to account for the fact that SQLite now prefers... X-Git-Tag: version-3.8.5~65^2~13 X-Git-Url: http://git.ipfire.org/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=b51926e67c4921137cac5e3b66257a445f23ad5f;p=thirdparty%2Fsqlite.git Update test script analyze3.test to account for the fact that SQLite now prefers a full-table scan over a non-covering index scan that visits a large percentage of the table rows. FossilOrigin-Name: 35f46a55d866b9a87c1321aab8e0cfe86ccadb93 --- diff --git a/manifest b/manifest index b301a439d1..06eee5c7d2 100644 --- a/manifest +++ b/manifest @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ -C Modify\sinternal\sfunction\swhereLoopAdjustCost()\sso\sthat\sit\sdoes\snot\sprefer\sa\sskip-scan\sover\sa\sregular\sindex\sscan\seven\sif\sthe\sregular\sscan\suses\sa\ssubset\sof\sthe\sWHERE\sterms\sused\sby\sthe\sskip-scan. -D 2014-04-28T09:35:31.541 +C Update\stest\sscript\sanalyze3.test\sto\saccount\sfor\sthe\sfact\sthat\sSQLite\snow\sprefers\sa\sfull-table\sscan\sover\sa\snon-covering\sindex\sscan\sthat\svisits\sa\slarge\spercentage\sof\sthe\stable\srows. +D 2014-04-28T10:00:59.075 F Makefile.arm-wince-mingw32ce-gcc d6df77f1f48d690bd73162294bbba7f59507c72f F Makefile.in 2ef13430cd359f7b361bb863504e227b25cc7f81 F Makefile.linux-gcc 91d710bdc4998cb015f39edf3cb314ec4f4d7e23 @@ -305,7 +305,7 @@ F test/alter4.test d6c011fa0d6227abba762498cafbb607c9609e93 F test/altermalloc.test e81ac9657ed25c6c5bb09bebfa5a047cd8e4acfc F test/amatch1.test b5ae7065f042b7f4c1c922933f4700add50cdb9f F test/analyze.test 1772936d66471c65221e437b6d1999c3a03166c4 -F test/analyze3.test 412f690dfe95b337475e3e78a84a85d25f6f125d +F test/analyze3.test bf41f0f680dd1e0d44eed5e769531e93a5320275 F test/analyze4.test eff2df19b8dd84529966420f29ea52edc6b56213 F test/analyze5.test 765c4e284aa69ca172772aa940946f55629bc8c4 F test/analyze6.test d31defa011a561b938b4608d3538c1b4e0b5e92c @@ -1162,7 +1162,7 @@ F tool/vdbe_profile.tcl 67746953071a9f8f2f668b73fe899074e2c6d8c1 F tool/warnings-clang.sh f6aa929dc20ef1f856af04a730772f59283631d4 F tool/warnings.sh d1a6de74685f360ab718efda6265994b99bbea01 F tool/win/sqlite.vsix 030f3eeaf2cb811a3692ab9c14d021a75ce41fff -P d491de62fce69d93e89f65f7713972f7c2c451f7 -R a36e9b880c1d76e2d8cd1072dd5871be +P 88a5758dcce891eb7be15432ebdc9f80071d413b +R a1e1c4a3f11d62d0bb62f198394034d8 U dan -Z 07995bb3734998fef6b8bca04739721a +Z fd306a356911acfe444509c2efb0dade diff --git a/manifest.uuid b/manifest.uuid index 8be55d6794..5b247aefe3 100644 --- a/manifest.uuid +++ b/manifest.uuid @@ -1 +1 @@ -88a5758dcce891eb7be15432ebdc9f80071d413b \ No newline at end of file +35f46a55d866b9a87c1321aab8e0cfe86ccadb93 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/test/analyze3.test b/test/analyze3.test index fb26303ee3..e7416d5730 100644 --- a/test/analyze3.test +++ b/test/analyze3.test @@ -103,12 +103,21 @@ do_test analyze3-1.1.1 { } } {1} +do_execsql_test analyze3-1.1.x { + SELECT count(*) FROM t1 WHERE x>200 AND x<300; + SELECT count(*) FROM t1 WHERE x>0 AND x<1100; +} {99 1000} + +# The first of the following two SELECT statements visits 99 rows. So +# it is better to use the index. But the second visits every row in +# the table (1000 in total) so it is better to do a full-table scan. +# do_eqp_test analyze3-1.1.2 { SELECT sum(y) FROM t1 WHERE x>200 AND x<300 } {0 0 0 {SEARCH TABLE t1 USING INDEX i1 (x>? AND x0 AND x<1100 -} {0 0 0 {SEARCH TABLE t1 USING INDEX i1 (x>? AND x200 AND x<300 } @@ -125,17 +134,17 @@ do_test analyze3-1.1.6 { } {199 0 14850} do_test analyze3-1.1.7 { sf_execsql { SELECT sum(y) FROM t1 WHERE x>0 AND x<1100 } -} {2000 0 499500} +} {999 999 499500} do_test analyze3-1.1.8 { set l [string range "0" 0 end] set u [string range "1100" 0 end] sf_execsql { SELECT sum(y) FROM t1 WHERE x>$l AND x<$u } -} {2000 0 499500} +} {999 999 499500} do_test analyze3-1.1.9 { set l [expr int(0)] set u [expr int(1100)] sf_execsql { SELECT sum(y) FROM t1 WHERE x>$l AND x<$u } -} {2000 0 499500} +} {999 999 499500} # The following tests are similar to the block above. The difference is @@ -152,12 +161,17 @@ do_test analyze3-1.2.1 { ANALYZE; } } {} +do_execsql_test analyze3-2.1.x { + SELECT count(*) FROM t2 WHERE x>1 AND x<2; + SELECT count(*) FROM t2 WHERE x>0 AND x<99; +} {200 990} do_eqp_test analyze3-1.2.2 { SELECT sum(y) FROM t2 WHERE x>1 AND x<2 } {0 0 0 {SEARCH TABLE t2 USING INDEX i2 (x>? AND x0 AND x<99 -} {0 0 0 {SEARCH TABLE t2 USING INDEX i2 (x>? AND x12 AND x<20 } } {161 0 4760} @@ -173,17 +187,17 @@ do_test analyze3-1.2.6 { } {161 0 integer integer 4760} do_test analyze3-1.2.7 { sf_execsql { SELECT sum(y) FROM t2 WHERE x>0 AND x<99 } -} {1981 0 490555} +} {999 999 490555} do_test analyze3-1.2.8 { set l [string range "0" 0 end] set u [string range "99" 0 end] sf_execsql {SELECT typeof($l), typeof($u), sum(y) FROM t2 WHERE x>$l AND x<$u} -} {1981 0 text text 490555} +} {999 999 text text 490555} do_test analyze3-1.2.9 { set l [expr int(0)] set u [expr int(99)] sf_execsql {SELECT typeof($l), typeof($u), sum(y) FROM t2 WHERE x>$l AND x<$u} -} {1981 0 integer integer 490555} +} {999 999 integer integer 490555} # Same tests a third time. This time, column x has INTEGER affinity and # is not the leftmost column of the table. This triggered a bug causing @@ -199,12 +213,16 @@ do_test analyze3-1.3.1 { ANALYZE; } } {} +do_execsql_test analyze3-1.3.x { + SELECT count(*) FROM t3 WHERE x>200 AND x<300; + SELECT count(*) FROM t3 WHERE x>0 AND x<1100 +} {99 1000} do_eqp_test analyze3-1.3.2 { SELECT sum(y) FROM t3 WHERE x>200 AND x<300 } {0 0 0 {SEARCH TABLE t3 USING INDEX i3 (x>? AND x0 AND x<1100 -} {0 0 0 {SEARCH TABLE t3 USING INDEX i3 (x>? AND x200 AND x<300 } @@ -221,17 +239,17 @@ do_test analyze3-1.3.6 { } {199 0 14850} do_test analyze3-1.3.7 { sf_execsql { SELECT sum(y) FROM t3 WHERE x>0 AND x<1100 } -} {2000 0 499500} +} {999 999 499500} do_test analyze3-1.3.8 { set l [string range "0" 0 end] set u [string range "1100" 0 end] sf_execsql { SELECT sum(y) FROM t3 WHERE x>$l AND x<$u } -} {2000 0 499500} +} {999 999 499500} do_test analyze3-1.3.9 { set l [expr int(0)] set u [expr int(1100)] sf_execsql { SELECT sum(y) FROM t3 WHERE x>$l AND x<$u } -} {2000 0 499500} +} {999 999 499500} #------------------------------------------------------------------------- # Test that the values of bound SQL variables may be used for the LIKE