While investigating DERBY-2805 I was trying to understand the purpose of
"ResultSetNode.markOrderingDependent()" as it is used in the language/optimizer
layer of code. In particular, see IndexRowToBaseRowNode:
/**
* Notify the underlying result set tree that the result is
* ordering dependent. (For example, no bulk fetch on an index
* if under an IndexRowToBaseRow.)
*/
void markOrderingDependent()
{
/* NOTE: We use a different method to tell a FBT that
* it cannot do a bulk fetch as the ordering issues are
* specific to a FBT being under an IRTBR as opposed to a
* FBT being under a PRN, etc.
*/
source.disableBulkFetch();
}
As part of some testing I ran statements in ij which effectively do the
following:
1. Get a SELECT cursor on the table that specifies an ORDER BY
2. In the middle of iterating through the table, update one of the rows.
3. Continue iterating through the cursor.
To my surprise, the results of the query differs depending on whether Derby does
an Index Scan or a Table Scan on the underlying table. In the case of an Index
Scan the open cursor will see the updated row; but in the case of a Table Scan
the cursor will *not* see the updated row. A quick look at the query plan shows
that in both cases Derby is doing "share row locking".
To see this in ij, do the following (I haven't tried this in JDBC yet...):
autocommit off;
create table str(c1 int, c2 int, c3 int);
insert into str values (1, 1, 2), (1, 2, 3), (1, 3, 4), (1, 4, 5);
create index str1 on str(c1, c2);
commit;
-- Force index scan.
get cursor c1 as
'select c2, c3 from str --DERBY-PROPERTIES index=str1
where c1 = 1 order by c2';
next c1; -- returns "1, 2"
update str set c2 = 4 where c2 = 2;
next c1; -- returns "3, 4"
next c1; -- returns "4, 3" ==> updated row is picked up
next c1; -- returns "4, 5"
next c1; -- no current row
close c1;
rollback;
-- Force table scan.
get cursor c1 as
'select c2, c3 from str --DERBY-PROPERTIES index=null
where c1 = 1 order by c2';
next c1; -- returns "1, 2"
update str set c2 = 4 where c2 = 2;
next c1; -- returns "2, 3" ==> updated row is *not* picked up
next c1; -- returns "3, 4"
next c1; -- returns "4, 5"
next c1; -- no current row
close c1;
rollback;
Is there a reason we get different results for the two query plans, or is this a
bug? If it's a bug, then what is the correct behavior for this kind of thing?
Note that if I comment out the call to "disableBulkFetch()" in the code shown at
the top of this mail, then the order of the rows changes for the Index Scan
(they are no longer in correct order), but the open cursor still picks up the
updated row.
I plan to see if I can reproduce this behavior using a JDBC program, but if
anyone has any thoughts/insight in the meantime, I'd appreciate the pointers.
And apologies in advance if I'm missing something obvious...
Army
