Thread: rule's behavior with join interesting

Here I have a very simple case

table1
table1_removed

anotherTable

create or replace RULE rec_remove as ON DELETE TO table1
do insert into table1_remove
select old.*, a.acc from old g join anotherTable a on g.acc=a.other_acc;
===
the parser complained       ERROR:  relation "*OLD*" does not exist
So I used
select old.*, a.acc from table1 g join anotherTable a on g.acc=a.other_acc;

This worked find.

When I run delete on table1, 213 rows.

tmp table received 213X213 = 45369 rows.  each row is duplicated 213 times.

My question: Is it possible to bring in another table in a rule?
Where am I wrong in this case.  Certainly I don't want that duplications.

My table1_removed contain a primary key for the id.  The speed of doing 
the delete is also very slow
apparently it has to do N-square inserts.
I have very limited information to read on the manual of postgres.
Any solution?

Kemin





**********************************************************************
Proprietary or confidential information belonging to Ferring Holding SA or to one of its affiliated companies may be
containedin the message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for the delivery of the
messageto such person), please do not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, please destroy this message
andnotify the sender by reply e-mail. Please advise the sender immediately if you or your employer do not consent to
e-mailfor messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message represent the opinion of
thesender and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views and opinions of Ferring.
 
**********************************************************************

On Wednesday 21 April 2004 21:07, Kemin Zhou wrote:
> Here I have a very simple case
>
> table1
> table1_removed
>
> anotherTable
>
> create or replace RULE rec_remove as ON DELETE TO table1
> do insert into table1_remove
> select old.*, a.acc from old g join anotherTable a on g.acc=a.other_acc;
> ===
> the parser complained       ERROR:  relation "*OLD*" does not exist
> So I used
> select old.*, a.acc from table1 g join anotherTable a on g.acc=a.other_acc;
>
> This worked find.
>
> When I run delete on table1, 213 rows.
>
> tmp table received 213X213 = 45369 rows.  each row is duplicated 213 times.

The issue here is that although you can refer to values such as OLD.acc, OLD 
is not a table but more like single row. So, you probably want
...DO INSERT INSTO table1_remove
SELECT old.*, a.acc FROM anotherTable a WHERE a.other_acc = OLD.acc;

Your second example just ignored the OLD.acc altogether in the join, so of 
course you got an unconstraind join of 213 x 213.
--  Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd

Richard Huxton wrote:
> On Wednesday 21 April 2004 21:07, Kemin Zhou wrote:
>> Here I have a very simple case
>>
>> table1
>> table1_removed
>>
>> anotherTable
>>
>> create or replace RULE rec_remove as ON DELETE TO table1
>> do insert into table1_remove
>> select old.*, a.acc from old g join anotherTable a on g.acc=a.other_acc;
>> ===
>> the parser complained       ERROR:  relation "*OLD*" does not exist
>> So I used
>> select old.*, a.acc from table1 g join anotherTable a on g.acc=a.other_acc;
>>
>> This worked find.
>>
>> When I run delete on table1, 213 rows.
>>
>> tmp table received 213X213 = 45369 rows.  each row is duplicated 213 times.
> 
> The issue here is that although you can refer to values such as OLD.acc, OLD 
> is not a table but more like single row. So, you probably want
> ...DO INSERT INSTO table1_remove
> SELECT old.*, a.acc FROM anotherTable a WHERE a.other_acc = OLD.acc;

Old is not a single row at all, it is a placeholder for the result set 
that is deleted in this case. The rule you probably want is:
    create rule rec_remove as on delete to table1    do insert into table1_remove select old.*, a.acc        from
anotherTablea where old.acc = a.other_acc;
 

This unfortunately does NOT support all the other join types, since the 
parser does not let you use JOIN before any FROM and you have old 
already in your rangetable, even if you don't see it.


Jan

> 
> Your second example just ignored the OLD.acc altogether in the join, so of 
> course you got an unconstraind join of 213 x 213.


-- 
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #