[jira] [Commented] (JENA-1187) Wrong results/performance regression when using BIND and graph pattern groups

["Andy Seaborne (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>]

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-1187?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15307747#comment-15307747 ] 

Andy Seaborne commented on JENA-1187:
-------------------------------------

What's the data for these queries?

> Wrong results/performance regression when using BIND and graph pattern groups
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: JENA-1187
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-1187
>             Project: Apache Jena
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: ARQ
>    Affects Versions: Jena 3.1.0, Fuseki 2.4.0
>            Reporter: Eetu Mäkelä
>
> I've been using SPARQL queries with BINDs and/or VALUESs that precede UNION blocks. These used to work efficiently (at least in Jena 2 times) with the bound value being bound also in the subpattern, but no longer do. In addition, at certain times, they produce nonsensical results. For example, the below returns {{rdf:type}} statements in the dataset without any regard to ?cl:
> {code}
> SELECT * {
>   {
>     BIND("nonexistant" AS ?cl)
>     {
>       BIND(?cl AS ?cl2)
>       ?c a ?cl2 .
>     } UNION {
>       BIND(?cl AS ?cl2)
>       ?c a ?cl2 .
>     }
>   }
> }
> LIMIT 10
> {code}
> while if you change _just one_ of the subpatterns in the union to directly refer to ?cl, it returns an empty result set:
> {code}
> SELECT * {
>   {
>     BIND("nonexistant" AS ?cl)
>     {
>       BIND(?cl AS ?cl2)
>       ?c a ?cl .
>     } UNION {
>       BIND(?cl AS ?cl2)
>       ?c a ?cl2 .
>     }
>   }
> }
> LIMIT 10
> {code}



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)