[jira] Commented: (DERBY-2526) Wrong results with queries that use the JOIN ... ON syntax to join with views or other non-base table expressions.

["A B (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>]

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2526?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12632272#action_12632272 ] 

A B commented on DERBY-2526:
----------------------------

> I'll look into backporting this fix to 10.2 and 10.1

For what it's worth, there was another bug in a similar area that also affected 10.1 and 10.2, namely, DERBY-3023.  One of the comments for that issue includes the following quote:

  "It turns out that the introduction of these invalid predicates stems from a problem that is almost
  identical to the one described in DERBY-2526. For details please see d2526_v1.html as attached
  to that issue, since pretty much everything in that document applies to this issue, as well."

So I wonder if it'd be worth it to port DERBY-3023 back, as well?  I don't feel strongly about it, I just figured I'd mention it in case you were interested...

> Wrong results with queries that use the JOIN ... ON syntax to join with views or other non-base table expressions.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: DERBY-2526
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2526
>             Project: Derby
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: SQL
>    Affects Versions: 10.0.2.1, 10.1.3.1, 10.2.2.0, 10.3.1.4
>            Reporter: Bryan Pendleton
>            Assignee: A B
>             Fix For: 10.1.3.2, 10.2.2.1, 10.3.1.4
>
>         Attachments: badQuery.log, d2526_v1.html, d2526_v1.patch, d2526_v2.patch, d2526_v2.stat, derby-2526.sql, DistinctTestNotes.txt, firstTryPatch.diff, goodQuery.log, releaseNote.html, releaseNote.html, TestDerby.java
>
>
> I think both select statements in the attached repro script should return 1 row, but in fact the first statement returns 1 row and the second returns zero rows.
> The only difference between the two statements is that the columns in the UNION view are listed in a different order (bvw vs. bvw2).
> This seems like a bug to me; the order of the columns in the view definition shouldn't matter, should it? 
> As Army noted on the derby-dev list, the fact that this reproduces with 10.0 means that it is not caused by some of the 10.2 optimizer changes. Something else is going wrong.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.