Many hyperlinks are disabled.
Use anonymous login
to enable hyperlinks.
Overview
| Comment: | Previous check-in is not quite correct. "x IN (?)" is not exactly the same as "x==?" do to collation and affinity issues. The correct converstion should be to "x==(+? COLLATE binary)". The current check-in fixes this problem and provides test cases. Ticket [e39d032577df69] |
|---|---|
| Downloads: | Tarball | ZIP archive | SQL archive |
| Timelines: | family | ancestors | descendants | both | trunk |
| Files: | files | file ages | folders |
| SHA1: |
2ff3b25f40fd117c8a2da1d1a3625f6b |
| User & Date: | drh 2014-03-20 14:56:47 |
References
|
2014-03-20
| ||
| 17:03 | The "x IN (?)" optimization in check-ins [2ff3b25f40] and [e68b427afb] is incorrect, as demonstrated by the in4-5.1 test case in this check-in. The "COLLATE binary" that was being added to the RHS of IN was overriding the implicit collating sequence of the LHS. This change defines the EP_Generic expression node property that blocks all affinity or collating sequence information in the expression subtree and adds that property to the expression taken from RHS of the IN operator. check-in: 2ea4a9f7 user: drh tags: trunk | |
Context
|
2014-03-20
| ||
| 15:14 | Fix harmless compiler warnings. check-in: b1435f26 user: drh tags: trunk | |
| 14:56 | Previous check-in is not quite correct. "x IN (?)" is not exactly the same as "x==?" do to collation and affinity issues. The correct converstion should be to "x==(+? COLLATE binary)". The current check-in fixes this problem and provides test cases. Ticket [e39d032577df69] check-in: 2ff3b25f user: drh tags: trunk | |
| 13:26 | Convert expressions of the form "X IN (?)" with exactly one value on the RHS of the IN into equality tests: "X=?". Add test cases to verify that statements work correctly on this corner case. Fix for ticket [e39d032577df6942]. check-in: e68b427a user: drh tags: trunk | |
Changes
Changes to src/parse.y.
Changes to test/in4.test.