Many hyperlinks are disabled.
Use anonymous login
to enable hyperlinks.
|
2020-01-04
| ||
| 17:42 | [65460600] part of check-in [b5900914] New test cases in test/in4.test require rtree, so disable those tests on builds that lack the rtree extension. (check-in: [b5900914] user: drh branch: trunk, size: 9664) | |
| 16:55 | [0dbdbed6] part of check-in [95ef6896] Fix a problem where the loop for the RHS of a LEFT JOIN uses values from an IN() clause as the second or subsequent field of an index. (check-in: [95ef6896] user: dan branch: trunk, size: 9626) | |
|
2019-08-27
| ||
| 17:01 | [0f77b0ff] part of check-in [7f5168a7] Omit the "x IN (y)" to "x==y" optimization of check-in [e68b427afbc82e20] (and ticket [e39d032577df6942]) as it causes difficult affinity problems as demonstrated by ticket [dbaf8a6820be1ece] and the original assertion fault is no longer a factor due to countless other changes of the previous 5 years. (check-in: [7f5168a7] user: drh branch: trunk, size: 9055) | |
|
2014-08-02
| ||
| 21:03 | [d2b38cba] part of check-in [436e8842] Enhancements to the code generator for the IN operator that result in much faster queries in some cases, for example when the RHS of the IN operator changes for each row of a large table scan. (check-in: [436e8842] user: drh branch: IN-operator-improvements, size: 8911) | |
|
2014-03-20
| ||
| 17:03 | [41c1c031] part of check-in [2ea4a9f7] The "x IN (?)" optimization in check-ins [2ff3b25f40] and [e68b427afb] is incorrect, as demonstrated by the in4-5.1 test case in this check-in. The "COLLATE binary" that was being added to the RHS of IN was overriding the implicit collating sequence of the LHS. This change defines the EP_Generic expression node property that blocks all affinity or collating sequence information in the expression subtree and adds that property to the expression taken from RHS of the IN operator. (check-in: [2ea4a9f7] user: drh branch: trunk, size: 8899) | |
| 14:56 | [18202389] part of check-in [2ff3b25f] Previous check-in is not quite correct. "x IN (?)" is not exactly the same as "x==?" do to collation and affinity issues. The correct converstion should be to "x==(+? COLLATE binary)". The current check-in fixes this problem and provides test cases. Ticket [e39d032577df69] (check-in: [2ff3b25f] user: drh branch: trunk, size: 7811) | |
| 13:26 | [ed42587b] part of check-in [e68b427a] Convert expressions of the form "X IN (?)" with exactly one value on the RHS of the IN into equality tests: "X=?". Add test cases to verify that statements work correctly on this corner case. Fix for ticket [e39d032577df6942]. (check-in: [e68b427a] user: drh branch: trunk, size: 6342) | |
|
2009-06-05
| ||
| 17:09 | [64f3cc1a] part of check-in [1fef16ec] Remove leftover "breakpoint" commands from test scripts. Also remove blank lines at the end of scripts. (CVS 6721) (check-in: [1fef16ec] user: drh branch: trunk, size: 3905) | |
|
2009-01-24
| ||
| 09:56 | [f795d65c] part of check-in [f3c09a0c] Remove incorrect ALWAYS macro associated with empty IN() sets. Ticket #3602. (CVS 6202) (check-in: [f3c09a0c] user: danielk1977 branch: trunk, size: 3914) | |
|
2008-11-24
| ||
| 15:32 | [9bfd9226] part of check-in [8502fba3] Added test case to in4.test to try and duplicate crash reported on the mailing list. (CVS 5951) (check-in: [8502fba3] user: shane branch: trunk, size: 2750) | |
|
2008-10-02
| ||
| 13:50 | Added: [c043f751] part of check-in [803a1736] Optimize queries that contain "WHERE rowid IN (x, y, z...)" by using an intkey btree to store the (x, y, z...) set instead of an index btree. (CVS 5760) (check-in: [803a1736] user: danielk1977 branch: trunk, size: 2046) | |