> On 26 June 2018 at 20:23, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > Hi, > > On 2018-06-26 23:50:32 +0530, Rushabh Lathia wrote: >> I found the below query which returns the wrong output >> when jit_above_cost= 0 is set. >> >> Steps to reproduce: >> >> CREATE TABLE emp ( >> epno NUMERIC(4), >> ename VARCHAR(10), >> job VARCHAR(9), >> mgr NUMERIC(4), >> hiredate DATE, >> sal NUMERIC(7,2), >> comm NUMERIC(7,2), >> deptno NUMERIC(2) >> ); >> >> INSERT INTO emp VALUES (7369,'SMITH','CLERK',7902,'17-DEC-80',800,NULL,20); >> INSERT INTO emp VALUES >> (7499,'ALLEN','SALESMAN',7698,'20-FEB-81',1600,300,30); >> >> set jit_above_cost= 0; >> >> select max(epno) from emp group by rollup((deptno,epno)) order by 1 asc; >> >> without the ROLLUP, I don't see any problem with results. > > Interesting. I've opened an open item referencing this.
Hi, Just out of curiosity, what exactly is wrong with the output of this query? I see the same results with jit_above_cost = 0 and with the default value: =# show jit_above_cost; jit_above_cost ---------------- 100000 (1 row) =# select max(epno) from emp group by rollup((deptno,epno)) order by 1 asc; max ------ 7369 7499 7499 (3 rows) =# set jit_above_cost = 0; SET =# select max(epno) from emp group by rollup((deptno,epno)) order by 1 asc; max ------ 7369 7499 7499 (3 rows) And as far as I understand it's totally correct, since we do rollup by just two values and have one more row as a total (with NULLs): =# select max(epno), deptno, epno from emp group by rollup((deptno,epno)) order by 1 asc; max | deptno | epno ------+--------+------ 7369 | 20 | 7369 7499 | NULL | NULL 7499 | 30 | 7499 (3 rows)
