Add //third_party/sqlite to dirs_to_snapshot, remove net_sql.patch

third_party/sqlite/sqlite-src-3070603/test/in3.test

Index: third_party/sqlite/sqlite-src-3070603/test/in3.test
diff --git a/third_party/sqlite/sqlite-src-3070603/test/in3.test b/third_party/sqlite/sqlite-src-3070603/test/in3.test
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..012c9b44526005849488bd363a65b122e2c6e0f2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/third_party/sqlite/sqlite-src-3070603/test/in3.test
@@ -0,0 +1,289 @@
+# 2007 November 29
+#
+# 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 tests the optimisations made in November 2007 of expressions 
+# of the following form:
+#
+#     <value> IN (SELECT <column> FROM <table>)
+#
+# $Id: in3.test,v 1.5 2008/08/04 03:51:24 danielk1977 Exp $
+
+set testdir [file dirname $argv0]
+source $testdir/tester.tcl
+
+ifcapable !subquery {
+  finish_test
+  return
+}
+
+# Return the number of OpenEphemeral instructions used in the
+# implementation of the sql statement passed as a an argument.
+#
+proc nEphemeral {sql} {
+  set nEph 0
+  foreach op [execsql "EXPLAIN $sql"] {
+    if {$op eq "OpenEphemeral"} {incr nEph}
+  }
+  set nEph
+}
+
+# This proc works the same way as execsql, except that the number
+# of OpenEphemeral instructions used in the implementation of the
+# statement is inserted into the start of the returned list.
+#
+proc exec_neph {sql} {
+  return [concat [nEphemeral $sql] [execsql $sql]]
+}
+
+do_test in3-1.1 {
+  execsql {
+    CREATE TABLE t1(a PRIMARY KEY, b);
+    INSERT INTO t1 VALUES(1, 2);
+    INSERT INTO t1 VALUES(3, 4);
+    INSERT INTO t1 VALUES(5, 6);
+  }
+} {}
+
+# All of these queries should avoid using a temp-table:
+#
+do_test in3-1.2 {
+  exec_neph { SELECT rowid FROM t1 WHERE rowid IN (SELECT rowid FROM t1); }
+} {0 1 2 3}
+do_test in3-1.3 {
+  exec_neph { SELECT a FROM t1 WHERE a IN (SELECT a FROM t1); }
+} {0 1 3 5}
+do_test in3-1.4 {
+  exec_neph { SELECT rowid FROM t1 WHERE rowid+0 IN (SELECT rowid FROM t1); }
+} {0 1 2 3}
+do_test in3-1.5 {
+  exec_neph { SELECT a FROM t1 WHERE a+0 IN (SELECT a FROM t1); }
+} {0 1 3 5}
+
+# Because none of the sub-select queries in the following statements
+# match the pattern ("SELECT <column> FROM <table>"), the following do 
+# require a temp table.
+#
+do_test in3-1.6 {
+  exec_neph { SELECT rowid FROM t1 WHERE rowid IN (SELECT rowid+0 FROM t1); }
+} {1 1 2 3}
+do_test in3-1.7 {
+  exec_neph { SELECT a FROM t1 WHERE a IN (SELECT a+0 FROM t1); }
+} {1 1 3 5}
+do_test in3-1.8 {
+  exec_neph { SELECT a FROM t1 WHERE a IN (SELECT a FROM t1 WHERE 1); }
+} {1 1 3 5}
+do_test in3-1.9 {
+  exec_neph { SELECT a FROM t1 WHERE a IN (SELECT a FROM t1 GROUP BY a); }
+} {1 1 3 5}
+
+# This should not use a temp-table. Even though the sub-select does
+# not exactly match the pattern "SELECT <column> FROM <table>", in
+# this case the ORDER BY is a no-op and can be ignored.
+do_test in3-1.10 {
+  exec_neph { SELECT a FROM t1 WHERE a IN (SELECT a FROM t1 ORDER BY a); }
+} {0 1 3 5}
+
+# These do use the temp-table. Adding the LIMIT clause means the 
+# ORDER BY cannot be ignored.
+do_test in3-1.11 {
+  exec_neph {SELECT a FROM t1 WHERE a IN (SELECT a FROM t1 ORDER BY a LIMIT 1)}
+} {1 1}
+do_test in3-1.12 {
+  exec_neph {
+    SELECT a FROM t1 WHERE a IN (SELECT a FROM t1 ORDER BY a LIMIT 1 OFFSET 1)
+  }
+} {1 3}
+
+# Has to use a temp-table because of the compound sub-select.
+#
+ifcapable compound {
+  do_test in3-1.13 {
+    exec_neph {
+      SELECT a FROM t1 WHERE a IN (
+        SELECT a FROM t1 UNION ALL SELECT a FROM t1
+      )
+    }
+  } {1 1 3 5}
+}
+
+# The first of these queries has to use the temp-table, because the 
+# collation sequence used for the index on "t1.a" does not match the
+# collation sequence used by the "IN" comparison. The second does not
+# require a temp-table, because the collation sequences match.
+#
+do_test in3-1.14 {
+  exec_neph { SELECT a FROM t1 WHERE a COLLATE nocase IN (SELECT a FROM t1) }
+} {1 1 3 5}
+do_test in3-1.15 {
+  exec_neph { SELECT a FROM t1 WHERE a COLLATE binary IN (SELECT a FROM t1) }
+} {0 1 3 5}
+
+# Neither of these queries require a temp-table. The collation sequence
+# makes no difference when using a rowid.
+#
+do_test in3-1.16 {
+  exec_neph {SELECT a FROM t1 WHERE a COLLATE nocase IN (SELECT rowid FROM t1)}
+} {0 1 3}
+do_test in3-1.17 {
+  exec_neph {SELECT a FROM t1 WHERE a COLLATE binary IN (SELECT rowid FROM t1)}
+} {0 1 3}
+
+# The following tests - in3.2.* - test a bug that was difficult to track
+# down during development. They are not particularly well focused.
+#
+do_test in3-2.1 {
+  execsql {
+    DROP TABLE IF EXISTS t1;
+    CREATE TABLE t1(w int, x int, y int);
+    CREATE TABLE t2(p int, q int, r int, s int);
+  }
+  for {set i 1} {$i<=100} {incr i} {
+    set w $i
+    set x [expr {int(log($i)/log(2))}]
+    set y [expr {$i*$i + 2*$i + 1}]
+    execsql "INSERT INTO t1 VALUES($w,$x,$y)"
+  }
+  set maxy [execsql {select max(y) from t1}]
+  db eval { INSERT INTO t2 SELECT 101-w, x, $maxy+1-y, y FROM t1 }
+} {}
+do_test in3-2.2 {
+  execsql {
+    SELECT rowid 
+    FROM t1 
+    WHERE rowid IN (SELECT rowid FROM t1 WHERE rowid IN (1, 2));
+  }
+} {1 2}
+do_test in3-2.3 {
+  execsql {
+    select rowid from t1 where rowid IN (-1,2,4)
+  }
+} {2 4}
+do_test in3-2.4 {
+  execsql {
+    SELECT rowid FROM t1 WHERE rowid IN 
+       (select rowid from t1 where rowid IN (-1,2,4))
+  }
+} {2 4}
+
+#-------------------------------------------------------------------------
+# This next block of tests - in3-3.* - verify that column affinity is
+# correctly handled in cases where an index might be used to optimise
+# an IN (SELECT) expression.
+#
+do_test in3-3.1 {
+  catch {execsql {
+    DROP TABLE t1;
+    DROP TABLE t2;
+  }}
+
+  execsql {
+
+    CREATE TABLE t1(a BLOB, b NUMBER ,c TEXT);
+    CREATE UNIQUE INDEX t1_i1 ON t1(a);        /* no affinity */
+    CREATE UNIQUE INDEX t1_i2 ON t1(b);        /* numeric affinity */
+    CREATE UNIQUE INDEX t1_i3 ON t1(c);        /* text affinity */
+
+    CREATE TABLE t2(x BLOB, y NUMBER, z TEXT);
+    CREATE UNIQUE INDEX t2_i1 ON t2(x);        /* no affinity */
+    CREATE UNIQUE INDEX t2_i2 ON t2(y);        /* numeric affinity */
+    CREATE UNIQUE INDEX t2_i3 ON t2(z);        /* text affinity */
+
+    INSERT INTO t1 VALUES(1, 1, 1);
+    INSERT INTO t2 VALUES('1', '1', '1');
+  }
+} {}
+
+do_test in3-3.2 {
+  # No affinity is applied before comparing "x" and "a". Therefore
+  # the index can be used (the comparison is false, text!=number).
+  exec_neph { SELECT x IN (SELECT a FROM t1) FROM t2 }
+} {0 0}
+do_test in3-3.3 {
+  # Logically, numeric affinity is applied to both sides before 
+  # the comparison.  Therefore it is possible to use index t1_i2.
+  exec_neph { SELECT x IN (SELECT b FROM t1) FROM t2 }
+} {0 1}
+do_test in3-3.4 {
+  # No affinity is applied before the comparison takes place. Making
+  # it possible to use index t1_i3.
+  exec_neph { SELECT x IN (SELECT c FROM t1) FROM t2 }
+} {0 1}
+
+do_test in3-3.5 {
+  # Numeric affinity should be applied to each side before the comparison
+  # takes place. Therefore we cannot use index t1_i1, which has no affinity.
+  exec_neph { SELECT y IN (SELECT a FROM t1) FROM t2 }
+} {1 1}
+do_test in3-3.6 {
+  # Numeric affinity is applied to both sides before 
+  # the comparison.  Therefore it is possible to use index t1_i2.
+  exec_neph { SELECT y IN (SELECT b FROM t1) FROM t2 }
+} {0 1}
+do_test in3-3.7 {
+  # Numeric affinity is applied before the comparison takes place. 
+  # Making it impossible to use index t1_i3.
+  exec_neph { SELECT y IN (SELECT c FROM t1) FROM t2 }
+} {1 1}
+
+#---------------------------------------------------------------------
+#
+# Test using a multi-column index.
+#
+do_test in3-4.1 {
+  execsql {
+    CREATE TABLE t3(a, b, c);
+    CREATE UNIQUE INDEX t3_i ON t3(b, a);
+  }
+
+  execsql {
+    INSERT INTO t3 VALUES(1, 'numeric', 2);
+    INSERT INTO t3 VALUES(2, 'text', 2);
+    INSERT INTO t3 VALUES(3, 'real', 2);
+    INSERT INTO t3 VALUES(4, 'none', 2);
+  }
+} {}
+do_test in3-4.2 {
+  exec_neph { SELECT 'text' IN (SELECT b FROM t3) }
+} {0 1}
+do_test in3-4.3 {
+  exec_neph { SELECT 'TEXT' COLLATE nocase IN (SELECT b FROM t3) }
+} {1 1}
+do_test in3-4.4 {
+  # A temp table must be used because t3_i.b is not guaranteed to be unique.
+  exec_neph { SELECT b FROM t3 WHERE b IN (SELECT b FROM t3) }
+} {1 none numeric real text}
+do_test in3-4.5 {
+  execsql { CREATE UNIQUE INDEX t3_i2 ON t3(b) }
+  exec_neph { SELECT b FROM t3 WHERE b IN (SELECT b FROM t3) }
+} {0 none numeric real text}
+do_test in3-4.6 {
+  execsql { DROP INDEX t3_i2 }
+} {}
+
+# The following two test cases verify that ticket #2991 has been fixed.
+#
+do_test in3-5.1 {
+  execsql {
+    CREATE TABLE Folders(
+      folderid INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, 
+      parentid INTEGER, 
+      rootid INTEGER, 
+      path VARCHAR(255)
+    );
+  }
+} {}
+do_test in3-5.2 {
+  catchsql {
+    DELETE FROM Folders WHERE folderid IN
+    (SELECT folderid FROM Folder WHERE path LIKE 'C:\MP3\Albums\' || '%');
+  }
+} {1 {no such table: Folder}}
+
+finish_test