From b406626c64313ae348996c243a0a05d3f6ed2c3c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jan Mercl <0xjnml@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 22:36:18 +0200
Subject: release v1.4.0-beta1

---
 testdata/tcl/autoindex3.test | 93 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 93 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 testdata/tcl/autoindex3.test

(limited to 'testdata/tcl/autoindex3.test')

diff --git a/testdata/tcl/autoindex3.test b/testdata/tcl/autoindex3.test
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9dcf249
--- /dev/null
+++ b/testdata/tcl/autoindex3.test
@@ -0,0 +1,93 @@
+# 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;
+} {
+  QUERY PLAN
+  |--SEARCH TABLE v USING INDEX ve (e>?)
+  `--SEARCH TABLE u USING AUTOMATIC COVERING INDEX (b=?)
+}
+
+
+finish_test
-- 
cgit v1.2.3-70-g09d2