Re: BUG #6535: LEFT JOIN on large table is altering data

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Aren Cambre" <aren(at)arencambre(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>,"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: BUG #6535: LEFT JOIN on large table is altering data
Date: 2012-03-18 20:33:38
Message-ID: 4F66005202000025000463DC@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> Aren Cambre <aren(at)arencambre(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> SELECT COUNT(*)
>> FROM consistent.master
>> WHERE citation_id IS NOT NULL
>> UNION
>> SELECT COUNT(*)
>> FROM consistent.master
>> UNION
>> SELECT COUNT(*)
>> FROM consistent.master
>> WHERE citation_id IS NULL
>>
>> I got this result:
>>
>> 2085344
>> 2085343
>> 0
>>
>> Not clear how adding a WHERE clause, whose only practical effect
>> is to reduce the number of rows returned, could cause *more* rows
>> to be returned.

> Never assume that the rows will be returned in any particular
> order from a query unless you specify ORDER BY.

Hmm. That doesn't explain why the numbers don't add up, though. Is
that a copy/paste from an actual query run, or was there some
hand-editing there? In particular, you might easily get that result
if that last line was really:

WHERE citation_id = ''

instead of the IS NULL test. In the ANSI standard and in PostgreSQL
there is a big difference between an empty string and NULL, although
there is at least one product I know of which breaks from standard
compliance by treating them as equivalent.

-Kevin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Aren Cambre 2012-03-19 02:14:48 Re: BUG #6535: LEFT JOIN on large table is altering data
Previous Message Aren Cambre 2012-03-18 20:29:41 Re: BUG #6535: LEFT JOIN on large table is altering data