Many hyperlinks are disabled.
Use anonymous login to enable hyperlinks.
5 check-ins tagged with "IN-with-ORDERBY"
|23:18||Fix a potential NULL-pointer dereference following an OOM error in the query planner logic for virtual tables with OR-connected terms. (Closed-Leaf check-in: 71b6c260 user: drh tags: IN-with-ORDERBY)|
|20:39||Make sure the virtual tables that take advantage of IN operators sort the RHS of the IN operator in the correct order according to the ORDER BY clause. (check-in: b016b754 user: drh tags: IN-with-ORDERBY)|
|18:48||Loop through the elements on the RHS of an IN operator in reverse order when the ORDER BY clauses specifies DESC. (check-in: f78395c8 user: drh tags: IN-with-ORDERBY)|
|16:04||Allow the "a=?1 OR a=?2" to "a IN (?1,?2)" transformation to work on virtual tables again. This was formerly restricted because virtual tables could not optimize IN terms. (See check-in [fad88e71cf195e].) But IN terms are now used by virtual tables (as of check-in [3d65c70343]) so the restriction can now be removed. (check-in: a917c1f0 user: drh tags: IN-with-ORDERBY)|
|21:15||Allow an index to be used for sorting even if prior terms of the index are constrained by IN operators. (check-in: 98bf668a user: drh tags: IN-with-ORDERBY)|