inconsistent behaviour of set-returning functions in sub-query with random() - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Tom van Tilburg
Subject inconsistent behaviour of set-returning functions in sub-query with random()
Date
Msg-id CAP3PPDiucxYCNev52=YPVkrQAPVF1C5PFWnrQPT7iMzO1fiKFQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: inconsistent behaviour of set-returning functions in sub-query with random()
List pgsql-general
Hi List,

Note beforehand: this question is a result of a stack-exchange that can be seen here:

I'm often using the WHERE clause random() > 0.5 to pick a random subset of my data. Now I noticed that when using a set-returning function in a sub-query, I either get the whole set or none (meaning that the WHERE random() > 0.5 clause is interpreted before the set is being generated). e.g.: 
SELECT num 
FROM (   SELECT unnest(Array[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10]) num
) AS foo 
WHERE random() > 0.5;

This seems inconsistent because the following query does take the whole set into account:

SELECT num 
FROM (   SELECT * FROM unnest(Array[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10]) num
) AS foo 
WHERE random() > 0.5;

So does this one:

WITH foo AS (   SELECT unnest(Array[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10]) num
) 
SELECT num 
FROM foo 
WHERE random() > 0.5;

Could anyone reflect on the seeming inconsistency here? I do understand that the planner sees the queries quite different (as can be seen from an EXPLAIN) but I don't understand the rationale behind it.

Notes:

  • couldn't find another function to test apart from random(), but likely there is some

  • I tested with generate_series and as well

  • My real use case works with postgis and pgpointcloud where a range of set-returning functions is used in this manner

Thanks,
 Tom
 

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Márcio A. Sepp
Date:
Subject: RES: Chante domain type - Postgres 9.2
Next
From: PHANIKUMAR G
Date:
Subject: need approval to join forums/community