- 09 Nov, 2012 2 commits
- 08 Nov, 2012 3 commits
-
-
Vladislav Vaintroub authored
-
unknown authored
-
unknown authored
-
- 07 Nov, 2012 1 commit
-
-
unknown authored
-
- 06 Nov, 2012 1 commit
-
-
unknown authored
-
- 02 Nov, 2012 4 commits
-
-
Igor Babaev authored
-
Sergey Petrunya authored
-
Sergey Petrunya authored
-
unknown authored
-
- 01 Nov, 2012 5 commits
-
-
Igor Babaev authored
If, when executing a query with ORDER BY col LIMIT n, the optimizer chose an index-merge scan to access the table containing col while there existed an index defined over col then optimizer did not consider the possibility of using an alternative range scan by this index to avoid filesort. This could cause a performance degradation if the optimizer flag index_merge was set up to 'on'.
-
unknown authored
-
unknown authored
-
unknown authored
-
unknown authored
-
- 31 Oct, 2012 5 commits
-
-
unknown authored
-
Michael Widenius authored
mysql-test/r/partition.result: Added test case mysql-test/t/partition.test: Added test case sql/ha_partition.cc: Removed printing of not initialized variable storage/maria/ha_maria.cc: Don't copy variables that are not initialized
-
Michael Widenius authored
storage/maria/ma_test2.c: Problem was that rnd() generated bigger value than allocated array
-
unknown authored
-
Sergey Petrunya authored
-
- 10 Oct, 2012 2 commits
-
-
unknown authored
Find left table in right join (which turned to left join by reordering tables in join list but phisical order of tables of SELECT left as it was).
-
Sergey Petrunya authored
.. into MariaDB 5.3 Fix for Bug#12667154 SAME QUERY EXEC AS WHERE SUBQ GIVES DIFFERENT RESULTS ON IN() & NOT IN() COMP #3 This bug causes a wrong result in mysql-trunk when ICP is used and bad performance in mysql-5.5 and mysql-trunk. Using the query from bug report to explain what happens and causes the wrong result from the query when ICP is enabled: 1. The t3 table contains four records. The outer query will read these and for each of these it will execute the subquery. 2. Before the first execution of the subquery it will be optimized. In this case the important is what happens to the first table t1: -make_join_select() will call the range optimizer which decides that t1 should be accessed using a range scan on the k1 index It creates a QUICK_RANGE_SELECT object for this. -As the last part of optimization the ICP code pushes the condition down to the storage engine for table t1 on the k1 index. This produces the following information in the explain for this table: 2 DEPENDENT SUBQUERY t1 range k1 k1 5 NULL 3 Using index condition; Using filesort Note the use of filesort. 3. The first execution of the subquery does (among other things) due to the need for sorting: a. Call create_sort_index() which again will call find_all_keys(): b. find_all_keys() will read the required keys for all qualifying rows from the storage engine. To do this it checks if it has a quick-select for the table. It will use the quick-select for reading records. In this case it will read four records from the storage engine (based on the range criteria). The storage engine will evaluate the pushed index condition for each record. c. At the end of create_sort_index() there is code that cleans up a lot of stuff on the join tab. One of the things that is cleaned is the select object. The result of this is that the quick-select object created in make_join_select is deleted. 4. The second execution of the subquery does the same as the first but the result is different: a. Call create_sort_index() which again will call find_all_keys() (same as for the first execution) b. find_all_keys() will read the keys from the storage engine. To do this it checks if it has a quick-select for the table. Now there is NO quick-select object(!) (since it was deleted in step 3c). So find_all_keys defaults to read the table using a table scan instead. So instead of reading the four relevant records in the range it reads the entire table (6 records). It then evaluates the table's condition (and here it goes wrong). Since the entire condition has been pushed down to the storage engine using ICP all 6 records qualify. (Note that the storage engine will not evaluate the pushed index condition in this case since it was pushed for the k1 index and now we do a table scan without any index being used). The result is that here we return six qualifying key values instead of four due to not evaluating the table's condition. c. As above. 5. The two last execution of the subquery will also produce wrong results for the same reason. Summary: The problem occurs due to all but the first executions of the subquery is done as a table scan without evaluating the table's condition (which is pushed to the storage engine on a different index). This is caused by the create_sort_index() function deleting the quick-select object that should have been used for executing the subquery as a range scan. Note that this bug in addition to causing wrong results also can result in bad performance due to executing the subquery using a table scan instead of a range scan. This is an issue in MySQL 5.5. The fix for this problem is to avoid that the Quick-select-object that the optimizer created is deleted when create_sort_index() is doing clean-up of the join-tab. This will ensure that the quick-select object and the corresponding pushed index condition will be available and used by all following executions of the subquery.
-
- 09 Oct, 2012 1 commit
-
-
unknown authored
-
- 14 Oct, 2012 1 commit
-
-
unknown authored
Empty result after reading const tables now works for subqueries.
-
- 05 Oct, 2012 1 commit
-
-
unknown authored
The problem was in incorrect detection of merged views in tem_direct_view_ref::used_tables() .
-
- 02 Oct, 2012 2 commits
-
-
unknown authored
Check ability of index to be NULL as it made in MyISAM. UNIQUE with NULL could have several NULL entries so we have to continue even if ve have found a row.
-
Igor Babaev authored
-
- 01 Oct, 2012 1 commit
-
-
Sergei Golubchik authored
-
- 30 Sep, 2012 1 commit
-
-
Igor Babaev authored
In some rare cases when the value of the system variable join_buffer_size was set to a number less than 256 the function JOIN_CACHE::set_constants determined the size of an offset in the join buffer equal to 1 though the minimal join buffer required more than 256 bytes. This could cause a crash of the server when records from the join buffer were read.
-
- 28 Sep, 2012 1 commit
-
-
unknown authored
-
- 27 Sep, 2012 4 commits
-
-
Sergei Golubchik authored
-
unknown authored
-
unknown authored
-
Alexey Botchkov authored
The feature was backported from MySQL 5.6. Some code was added to make commands as SELECT * FROM ignored_db.t1; CALL ignored_db.proc(); USE ignored_db; to take that option into account. per-file comments: mysql-test/r/ignore_db_dirs_basic.result test result added. mysql-test/t/ignore_db_dirs_basic-master.opt options for the test, actually the set of --ignore-db-dir lines. mysql-test/t/ignore_db_dirs_basic.test test for the feature. Same test from 5.6 was taken as a basis, then tests for SELECT, CALL etc were added. per-file comments: sql/mysql_priv.h MDEV-495 backport --ignore-db-dir. interface for db_name_is_in_ignore_list() added. sql/mysqld.cc MDEV-495 backport --ignore-db-dir. --ignore-db-dir handling. sql/set_var.cc MDEV-495 backport --ignore-db-dir. the @@ignore_db_dirs variable added. sql/sql_show.cc MDEV-495 backport --ignore-db-dir. check if the directory is ignored. sql/sql_show.h MDEV-495 backport --ignore-db-dir. interface added for opt_ignored_db_dirs. sql/table.cc MDEV-495 backport --ignore-db-dir. check if the directory is ignored.
-
- 26 Sep, 2012 3 commits
-
-
Sergei Golubchik authored
-
Sergei Golubchik authored
-
unknown authored
- Fix some warnings in newer GCC (-Werror ...). - Fix wrong STACK_DIRECTION detected by configure due to compiler inlining.
-
- 25 Sep, 2012 1 commit
-
-
Sergei Golubchik authored
-
- 26 Sep, 2012 1 commit
-
-
unknown authored
-