Re: BUG #17150: Unexpected outputs from the query

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "luy70(at)psu(dot)edu" <luy70(at)psu(dot)edu>, "pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: BUG #17150: Unexpected outputs from the query
Date: 2021-08-17 18:56:43
Message-ID: 1369911.1629226603@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tuesday, August 17, 2021, PG Bug reporting form <noreply(at)postgresql(dot)org>
> wrote:
>> This
>> unexpected return can be fixed by removing "ORDER BY ( SELECT COUNT ( v1 )
>> )", then the query returns sum="0" as expected.

> Well, PostgreSQL cannot remove the order by otherwise it would be a
> different query. So your suggestion is spot on, and the user should
> probably do that, but it doesn’t seem like a bug.

Yeah. PG interprets

SELECT x FROM v2 ORDER BY (SELECT COUNT(v1))

to behave the same as

SELECT x, (SELECT COUNT(v1)) FROM v2 ORDER BY 2

(modulo the fact that the ORDER BY column won't be output),
and then it turns out that that's effectively the same as

SELECT x, COUNT(v1) FROM v2 ORDER BY 2

the reason being that since v1 is a variable of the outer query,
the aggregate is considered to be an aggregate of the outer query
*not* the sub-select. (That's required by the SQL standard.)
So at this point you have an aggregated query that is certain
to return 1 row, not more or less, regardless of how many rows
are returned by v2.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Liang Sr., Yu 2021-08-17 19:08:55 Re: BUG #17150: Unexpected outputs from the query
Previous Message David G. Johnston 2021-08-17 18:27:10 Re: BUG #17150: Unexpected outputs from the query