I have no objections to removal of RTRIM, but I wonder if there was a specific reason why we added it for Sybase in 4.2 though? There had to be, right?
Andrus > On Jul 24, 2019, at 4:31 AM, Arseni Bulatski <abulat...@objectstyle.com> > wrote: > > So, if the previous behavior was normal, I'll move it back. > This is task for it: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAY-2602 > And this is commit for it: > https://github.com/apache/cayenne/commit/942ba5786af9a2ed47be5a1881e390c7d7101250 > Could you please check this change? > If something going wrong write to list, please. > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 8:56 PM Lon Varscsak <lon.varsc...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> In 4.1.B2-SNAPSHOT, I do not get the RTRIM behavior: >> >> SELECT DISTINCT [t0].[average_cost], [t0].[backorder_flag], >> [t0].[break_match_code], [t0].[case_location], [t0].[case_qty], >> [t0].[category_code], [t0].[cgs_gl_account], [t0].[charges_group_code], >> [t0].[composition_family], [t0].[composition_output_definition], >> [t0].[custom_vendor], [t0].[description], [t0].[drop_ship_code], >> [t0].[duties_percent], [t0].[duties_tax_cost_percent], >> [t0].[envelope_item_number], [t0].[expect_date], [t0].[first_sale_date], >> [t0].[freight_cost_percent], [t0].[inventory_gl_account], [t0].[lead_time], >> [t0].[license_required], [t0].[market], [t0].[material], >> [t0].[merchandise_cost_percent], [t0].[operator_message], [t0].[origin], >> [t0].[part_number], [t0].[personalization_flag], [t0].[primary_location], >> [t0].[print_specification], [t0].[print_template], [t0].[procurement_code], >> [t0].[qty_expected], [t0].[qty_on_backorder], [t0].[qty_on_hand], >> [t0].[qty_reserved], [t0].[qty_available], [t0].[return_gl_account], >> [t0].[sales_gl_account], [t0].[sales_unit], [t0].[serial_number_flag], >> [t0].[special_process], [t0].[status], [t0].[tax_flag], >> [t0].[tesla_qty_on_backorder], [t0].[tesla_qty_reserved], >> [t0].[unit_of_measure], [t0].[vap_cost_percent], [t0].[vendor_code], >> [t0].[weight], [t0].[root_part_number] FROM [production].[dbo].[part] [t0] >> WHERE *[t0].[part_number] *= ? [bind: 1->part_number:'120476'] >> >> Having the RTRIM on the lefthand side would cause any database to ignore >> the index and do a table scan. >> >> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:23 AM Arseni Bulatski <abulat...@objectstyle.com >>> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Lon, >>> I looked through your issue and tried to reproduce it. >>> As I understand you have table with char PK. >>> I run it on both 4.1 and 4.2 and have such results: >>> For 4.1 SELECT t0.OTHER_COL, t0.PK_COL FROM CHAR_PK_TEST t0 WHERE >>> RTRIM(t0.PK_COL) = ? [bind: 1->PK_COL:123] >>> For 4.2 SELECT RTRIM(t0.OTHER_COL), RTRIM(t0.PK_COL) FROM CHAR_PK_TEST t0 >>> WHERE RTRIM(t0.PK_COL) = ? [bind: 1->PK_COL:123] >>> Maybe you can add some more details for it? >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 7:47 PM Lon Varscsak <lon.varsc...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hey Nikita, this is still a problem, but looks like it's happening on >>>> straight-forward fetches (possibly with "char" datatypes): >>>> >>>> SELECT DISTINCT [t0].[average_cost], [t0].[backorder_flag], >>>> [t0].[break_match_code], [t0].[case_location], [t0].[case_qty], >>>> [t0].[category_code], [t0].[cgs_gl_account], >>>> RTRIM([t0].[charges_group_code]), [t0].[composition_family], >>>> [t0].[composition_output_definition], [t0].[custom_vendor], >>>> [t0].[description], RTRIM([t0].[drop_ship_code]), >> [t0].[duties_percent], >>>> [t0].[duties_tax_cost_percent], RTRIM([t0].[envelope_item_number]), >>>> [t0].[expect_date], [t0].[first_sale_date], >> [t0].[freight_cost_percent], >>>> [t0].[inventory_gl_account], [t0].[lead_time], [t0].[license_required], >>>> RTRIM([t0].[market]), [t0].[material], [t0].[merchandise_cost_percent], >>>> [t0].[operator_message], [t0].[origin], RTRIM([t0].[part_number]), >>>> [t0].[personalization_flag], [t0].[primary_location], >>>> [t0].[print_specification], [t0].[print_template], >>>> RTRIM([t0].[procurement_code]), [t0].[qty_expected], >>>> [t0].[qty_on_backorder], [t0].[qty_on_hand], [t0].[qty_reserved], >>>> [t0].[qty_available], [t0].[return_gl_account], >> [t0].[sales_gl_account], >>>> [t0].[sales_unit], [t0].[serial_number_flag], [t0].[special_process], >>>> [t0].[status], [t0].[tax_flag], [t0].[tesla_qty_on_backorder], >>>> [t0].[tesla_qty_reserved], [t0].[unit_of_measure], >>> [t0].[vap_cost_percent], >>>> RTRIM([t0].[vendor_code]), [t0].[weight], >> RTRIM([t0].[root_part_number]) >>>> FROM [production.dbo.part] [t0] WHERE *RTRIM([t0].[part_number])* = ? >>>> [bind: 1->part_number:'120476'] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 10:47 AM Lon Varscsak <lon.varsc...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks! >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 5:04 AM Nikita Timofeev < >>>> ntimof...@objectstyle.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> Fixed this, see [1]. Thank you for another catch! >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAY-2578 >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 11:28 PM Lon Varscsak < >> lon.varsc...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hey all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have a join from order_detail_sales to continuity_detail based >> on >>>>>>> order_number and order_line_number. When fetching the to-one >>>>>>> getContinuityDetail I'm getting an error because the query >> generated >>>> is >>>>>>> swapping the keys: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> SELECT [t0].[intent_date], [t0].[line_end_date], >>>> [t0].[line_setup_date], >>>>>>> [t0].[next_ship_date], RTRIM([t0].[process_flag]), >>>> [t0].[reminder_date], >>>>>>> [t0].[reminder_days], [t0].[scheduled_shipments], >>>> [t0].[ship_frequency], >>>>>>> [t0].[order_number], [t0].[order_line_number] FROM >>>>>>> [production.dbo.continuity_detail] [t0] WHERE *( ( >>> [t0].[order_number] >>>>>> = ? >>>>>>> ) AND ( [t0].[order_line_number] = ? ) ) [bind: 1:1, 2:57874832]* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In reality "57874832" is the order_number and "1" is the >>>>>> order_line_number, >>>>>>> but the query generator has swapped them. I've verified the joins >>> in >>>>>> the >>>>>>> modeler (and 4.1 works). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Lon >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>> Nikita Timofeev >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>
