1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
|
# 2011 August 13
#
# 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 implements tests for SQLite library. The focus of the tests
# in this file is testing the capabilities of sqlite_stat4.
#
set testdir [file dirname $argv0]
source $testdir/tester.tcl
ifcapable !stat4 {
finish_test
return
}
set testprefix analyze8
proc eqp {sql {db db}} {
uplevel execsql [list "EXPLAIN QUERY PLAN $sql"] $db
}
# Scenario:
#
# Two indices. One has mostly singleton entries, but for a few
# values there are hundreds of entries. The other has 10-20
# entries per value.
#
# Verify that the query planner chooses the first index for the singleton
# entries and the second index for the others.
#
do_test 1.0 {
db eval {
CREATE TABLE t1(a,b,c,d);
CREATE INDEX t1a ON t1(a);
CREATE INDEX t1b ON t1(b);
CREATE INDEX t1c ON t1(c);
}
for {set i 0} {$i<1000} {incr i} {
if {$i%2==0} {set a $i} {set a [expr {($i%8)*100}]}
set b [expr {$i/10}]
set c [expr {$i/8}]
set c [expr {$c*$c*$c}]
db eval {INSERT INTO t1 VALUES($a,$b,$c,$i)}
}
db eval {ANALYZE}
} {}
# The a==100 comparison is expensive because there are many rows
# with a==100. And so for those cases, choose the t1b index.
#
# Buf ro a==99 and a==101, there are far fewer rows so choose
# the t1a index.
#
do_test 1.1 {
eqp {SELECT * FROM t1 WHERE a=100 AND b=55}
} {/*SEARCH t1 USING INDEX t1b (b=?)*/}
do_test 1.2 {
eqp {SELECT * FROM t1 WHERE a=99 AND b=55}
} {/*SEARCH t1 USING INDEX t1a (a=?)*/}
do_test 1.3 {
eqp {SELECT * FROM t1 WHERE a=101 AND b=55}
} {/*SEARCH t1 USING INDEX t1a (a=?)*/}
do_test 1.4 {
eqp {SELECT * FROM t1 WHERE a=100 AND b=56}
} {/*SEARCH t1 USING INDEX t1b (b=?)*/}
do_test 1.5 {
eqp {SELECT * FROM t1 WHERE a=99 AND b=56}
} {/*SEARCH t1 USING INDEX t1a (a=?)*/}
do_test 1.6 {
eqp {SELECT * FROM t1 WHERE a=101 AND b=56}
} {/*SEARCH t1 USING INDEX t1a (a=?)*/}
do_test 2.1 {
eqp {SELECT * FROM t1 WHERE a=100 AND b BETWEEN 50 AND 54}
} {/*SEARCH t1 USING INDEX t1b (b>? AND b<?)*/}
# There are many more values of c between 0 and 100000 than there are
# between 800000 and 900000. So t1c is more selective for the latter
# range.
#
# Test 3.2 is a little unstable. It depends on the planner estimating
# that (b BETWEEN 30 AND 34) will match more rows than (c BETWEEN
# 800000 AND 900000). Which is a pretty close call (50 vs. 32), so
# the planner could get it wrong with an unlucky set of samples. This
# case happens to work, but others ("b BETWEEN 40 AND 44" for example)
# will fail.
#
do_execsql_test 3.0 {
SELECT count(*) FROM t1 WHERE b BETWEEN 30 AND 34;
SELECT count(*) FROM t1 WHERE c BETWEEN 0 AND 100000;
SELECT count(*) FROM t1 WHERE c BETWEEN 800000 AND 900000;
} {50 376 32}
do_test 3.1 {
eqp {SELECT * FROM t1 WHERE b BETWEEN 30 AND 34 AND c BETWEEN 0 AND 100000}
} {/*SEARCH t1 USING INDEX t1b (b>? AND b<?)*/}
do_test 3.2 {
eqp {SELECT * FROM t1
WHERE b BETWEEN 30 AND 34 AND c BETWEEN 800000 AND 900000}
} {/*SEARCH t1 USING INDEX t1c (c>? AND c<?)*/}
do_test 3.3 {
eqp {SELECT * FROM t1 WHERE a=100 AND c BETWEEN 0 AND 100000}
} {/*SEARCH t1 USING INDEX t1a (a=?)*/}
do_test 3.4 {
eqp {SELECT * FROM t1
WHERE a=100 AND c BETWEEN 800000 AND 900000}
} {/*SEARCH t1 USING INDEX t1c (c>? AND c<?)*/}
finish_test
|
