[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14684?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Benjamin Lerer updated CASSANDRA-14684:
---------------------------------------
Description:
[cqlsh 5.0.1 | Cassandra 2.2.9 | CQL spec 3.3.1 | Native protocol v4]
When running a CQL query where we filter on a token compared to
-9223372036854775808 (the minimum value for a long), the filter appears to have
no effect.
For example:
{code:java}
SELECT token(user_id) FROM events WHERE token(user_id) = -9223372036854775808
LIMIT 3;
system.token(user_id)
-----------------------
-9223371814601747988
-9223371814601747988
-9223371814601747988
{code}
It doesn't matter whether `=`, `<`, `<=`, `>` or `>=` are used in the
comparison, the results appear the same.
In contrast, if using `Long.MIN_VALUE + 1`, it returns no results as expected:
{code:java}
SELECT token(user_id) FROM events WHERE token(user_id) <= -9223372036854775807
LIMIT 3;
system.token(user_id)
-----------------------
(0 rows)
{code}
+Additional information for newcomers:+
Some checks should be added into {{TokenRestriction}} for the different type of
restrictions when an invalid value is found.
The unit tests should be added within {{SelectOrderedPartitionerTest}}
The problem should be fixed in 3.0. It should mere cleanly to the other
branches
was:
[cqlsh 5.0.1 | Cassandra 2.2.9 | CQL spec 3.3.1 | Native protocol v4]
When running a CQL query where we filter on a token compared to
-9223372036854775808 (the minimum value for a long), the filter appears to have
no effect.
For example:
{code:java}
SELECT token(user_id) FROM events WHERE token(user_id) = -9223372036854775808
LIMIT 3;
system.token(user_id)
-----------------------
-9223371814601747988
-9223371814601747988
-9223371814601747988
{code}
It doesn't matter whether `=`, `<`, `<=`, `>` or `>=` are used in the
comparison, the results appear the same.
In contrast, if using `Long.MIN_VALUE + 1`, it returns no results as expected:
{code:java}
SELECT token(user_id) FROM events WHERE token(user_id) <= -9223372036854775807
LIMIT 3;
system.token(user_id)
-----------------------
(0 rows)
{code}
+Additional information for newcomers:+
Some checks should be added into {{TokenRestriction}} for the different type of
restrictions when an invalid value is found.
The unit tests should be added within {{SelectOrderedPartitionerTest}}
> Queries with a clause involving tokens and Long.MIN_VALUE include rows
> incorrectly
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-14684
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14684
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Legacy/CQL
> Reporter: George Boyle
> Priority: Low
> Labels: AdventCalendar2021, lhf
> Fix For: 3.0.x, 3.11.x, 4.0.x, 4.x
>
>
> [cqlsh 5.0.1 | Cassandra 2.2.9 | CQL spec 3.3.1 | Native protocol v4]
> When running a CQL query where we filter on a token compared to
> -9223372036854775808 (the minimum value for a long), the filter appears to
> have no effect.
> For example:
> {code:java}
> SELECT token(user_id) FROM events WHERE token(user_id) = -9223372036854775808
> LIMIT 3;
> system.token(user_id)
> -----------------------
> -9223371814601747988
> -9223371814601747988
> -9223371814601747988
> {code}
> It doesn't matter whether `=`, `<`, `<=`, `>` or `>=` are used in the
> comparison, the results appear the same.
> In contrast, if using `Long.MIN_VALUE + 1`, it returns no results as
> expected:
> {code:java}
> SELECT token(user_id) FROM events WHERE token(user_id) <=
> -9223372036854775807 LIMIT 3;
> system.token(user_id)
> -----------------------
> (0 rows)
> {code}
>
> +Additional information for newcomers:+
> Some checks should be added into {{TokenRestriction}} for the different type
> of restrictions when an invalid value is found.
> The unit tests should be added within {{SelectOrderedPartitionerTest}}
> The problem should be fixed in 3.0. It should mere cleanly to the other
> branches
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.1#820001)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
