Any difference if you apply the patch for PHOENIX-2319?
Thanks,
James
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Chunhui Liu <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi team,
>
> When I try to use paged query on secondary index, I found a issue.
>
> 1. Table has more than 2 primary keys;
> 2. Table's 1st pk as index's last pk; eg. table's pks are (pk1, pk2, pk3),
> the failed index's pks are (pk2, pk3, pk1); table's pks are (1, 2, 3, 4),
> failed index's pks are (2, 3, 4, 5, 1);
> 3. Use row value constructors on index with another condition that use one
> pks(not the table's 1st pk);
> 4. You will get "DEGENERATE SCAN OVER TABLE_NAME"
>
> Here is the Test SQL
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DROP TABLE IF EXISTS T;
>
> CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS T (
> PK1 VARCHAR not null,
> PK2 VARCHAR not null,
> PK3 VARCHAR not null,
> V1 VARCHAR,
> CONSTRAINT PK PRIMARY KEY (PK1, PK2, PK3)
> );
>
> CREATE INDEX IDX_T ON T
> (
> PK2, PK3, PK1
> );
>
> UPSERT INTO T VALUES('100', '200', '300', 'V');
> UPSERT INTO T VALUES('101', '201', '301', 'V');
> UPSERT INTO T VALUES('102', '202', '302', 'V');
> UPSERT INTO T VALUES('103', '203', '303', 'V');
> UPSERT INTO T VALUES('104', '204', '304', 'V');
>
> SELECT * FROM T;
>
> EXPLAIN
> SELECT PK1, PK2, PK3 FROM T WHERE
> (PK2, PK3, PK1) >= ('202', '302', '102')
> AND PK2 < '204'
> LIMIT 10;
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I've tried 3 primary key, here is the results.
> 1. table's pks are (pk1, pk2, pk3);
> 2. 132 means (pk1, pk3, pk2);
>
> | index's pks order | result |
> | --------------------- | ------------------------------------ |
> | 132 | correct |
> | 213 | correct |
> | 231 | fail |
> | 312 | correct |
> | 321 | correct |
>
> I've also test this on table with 4, 5 pks
> | len(pks) | failed order |
> | --------------------- | ------------------------------------ |
> | 3 | 231 |
> | 4 | 2341 |
> | 5 | 23451 |
>
>
> Thanks,
> Chunhui
>
>
