Index: third_party/sqlite/sqlite-src-3170000/test/autoindex3.test |
diff --git a/third_party/sqlite/sqlite-src-3170000/test/autoindex3.test b/third_party/sqlite/sqlite-src-3170000/test/autoindex3.test |
new file mode 100644 |
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c99a175c6db830702d90ff312ead9e5ff68bc33a |
--- /dev/null |
+++ b/third_party/sqlite/sqlite-src-3170000/test/autoindex3.test |
@@ -0,0 +1,92 @@ |
+# 2014-06-17 |
+# |
+# The author disclaims copyright to this source code. In place of |
+# a legal notice, here is a blessing: |
+# |
+# May you do good and not evil. |
+# May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others. |
+# May you share freely, never taking more than you give. |
+# |
+#************************************************************************* |
+# |
+# This file implements regression tests for SQLite library. The |
+# focus of this script is testing automatic index creation logic, |
+# and specifically that an automatic index will not be created that |
+# shadows a declared index. |
+# |
+ |
+set testdir [file dirname $argv0] |
+source $testdir/tester.tcl |
+set testprefix autoindex3 |
+ |
+# The t1b and t2d indexes are not very selective. It used to be that |
+# the autoindex mechanism would create automatic indexes on t1(b) or |
+# t2(d), make assumptions that they were reasonably selective, and use |
+# them instead of t1b or t2d. But that would be cheating, because the |
+# automatic index cannot be any more selective than the real index. |
+# |
+# This test verifies that the cheat is no longer allowed. |
+# |
+do_execsql_test autoindex3-100 { |
+ CREATE TABLE t1(a,b,x); |
+ CREATE TABLE t2(c,d,y); |
+ CREATE INDEX t1b ON t1(b); |
+ CREATE INDEX t2d ON t2(d); |
+ ANALYZE sqlite_master; |
+ INSERT INTO sqlite_stat1 VALUES('t1','t1b','10000 500'); |
+ INSERT INTO sqlite_stat1 VALUES('t2','t2d','10000 500'); |
+ ANALYZE sqlite_master; |
+ EXPLAIN QUERY PLAN SELECT * FROM t1, t2 WHERE d=b; |
+} {~/AUTO/} |
+ |
+# Automatic indexes can still be used if existing indexes do not |
+# participate in == constraints. |
+# |
+do_execsql_test autoindex3-110 { |
+ EXPLAIN QUERY PLAN SELECT * FROM t1, t2 WHERE d>b AND x=y; |
+} {/AUTO/} |
+do_execsql_test autoindex3-120 { |
+ EXPLAIN QUERY PLAN SELECT * FROM t1, t2 WHERE d<b AND x=y; |
+} {/AUTO/} |
+do_execsql_test autoindex3-130 { |
+ EXPLAIN QUERY PLAN SELECT * FROM t1, t2 WHERE d IS NULL AND x=y; |
+} {/AUTO/} |
+do_execsql_test autoindex3-140 { |
+ EXPLAIN QUERY PLAN SELECT * FROM t1, t2 WHERE d IN (5,b) AND x=y; |
+} {/AUTO/} |
+ |
+reset_db |
+do_execsql_test 210 { |
+ CREATE TABLE v(b, d, e); |
+ CREATE TABLE u(a, b, c); |
+ ANALYZE sqlite_master; |
+ INSERT INTO "sqlite_stat1" VALUES('u','uab','40000 400 1'); |
+ INSERT INTO "sqlite_stat1" VALUES('v','vbde','40000 400 1 1'); |
+ INSERT INTO "sqlite_stat1" VALUES('v','ve','40000 21'); |
+ |
+ CREATE INDEX uab on u(a, b); |
+ CREATE INDEX ve on v(e); |
+ CREATE INDEX vbde on v(b,d,e); |
+ |
+ DROP TABLE IF EXISTS sqlite_stat4; |
+ ANALYZE sqlite_master; |
+} |
+ |
+# At one point, SQLite was using the inferior plan: |
+# |
+# 0|0|1|SEARCH TABLE v USING INDEX ve (e>?) |
+# 0|1|0|SEARCH TABLE u USING COVERING INDEX uab (ANY(a) AND b=?) |
+# |
+# on the basis that the real index "uab" must be better than the automatic |
+# index. This is not right - a skip-scan is not necessarily better than an |
+# automatic index scan. |
+# |
+do_eqp_test 220 { |
+ select count(*) from u, v where u.b = v.b and v.e > 34; |
+} { |
+ 0 0 1 {SEARCH TABLE v USING INDEX ve (e>?)} |
+ 0 1 0 {SEARCH TABLE u USING AUTOMATIC COVERING INDEX (b=?)} |
+} |
+ |
+ |
+finish_test |