Thread: [HACKERS] generate_series regression 9.6->10

[HACKERS] generate_series regression 9.6->10

From
Paul Ramsey
Date:
The behaviour of generate_series seems to have changed a little, at least in conjunction w/ CTEs. Under 9.6 (and prior) this query returns 2127 rows, with no nulls:

with
ij as ( select i, j from generate_series(1, 10) i, generate_series(1, 10) j),
iijj as (select generate_series(1, i) as a, generate_series(1, j) b from ij)
select a, b from iijj;

Under 10, it returns only 715 rows, with many nulls. 

Re: [HACKERS] generate_series regression 9.6->10

From
Andres Freund
Date:
On 2017-05-24 10:09:19 -0700, Paul Ramsey wrote:
> The behaviour of generate_series seems to have changed a little, at least
> in conjunction w/ CTEs. Under 9.6 (and prior) this query returns 2127 rows,
> with no nulls:
> 
> with
> ij as ( select i, j from generate_series(1, 10) i, generate_series(1, 10)
> j),
> iijj as (select generate_series(1, i) as a, generate_series(1, j) b from ij)
> select a, b from iijj;
> 
> Under 10, it returns only 715 rows, with many nulls.

Right, that's expected - we probably need to expand on that in the
release notes.  Before v10 targetlist with multiple SRFs were evaluated
using on a "least common multiple" logic.  I.e. if you have SELECT
generate_series(1,2), generate_series(1,4); once the first SRFs is
exhausted it was restarted.  Only once all SRFs stopped returning rows
at the same time, things were stopped.  Going on forward, once either
SRF stops returning rows, it'll return NULL until all SRFs are
exhausted.

Makes sense?  Is that a problem for you? If so, what do you use the LCM
logic for in practical terms?

Greetings,

Andres Freund



Re: [HACKERS] generate_series regression 9.6->10

From
Tom Lane
Date:
Paul Ramsey <pramsey@cleverelephant.ca> writes:
> The behaviour of generate_series seems to have changed a little, at least
> in conjunction w/ CTEs.

What's changed is the behavior of multiple SRFs in a SELECT's targetlist,
cf

https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git&a=commitdiff&h=69f4b9c85f168ae006929eec44fc44d569e846b9

specifically this comment:
   While moving SRF evaluation to ProjectSet would allow to retain the old   "least common multiple" behavior when
multipleSRFs are present in one   targetlist (i.e.  continue returning rows until all SRFs are at the end of   their
inputat the same time), we decided to instead only return rows till   all SRFs are exhausted, returning NULL for
alreadyexhausted ones.  We   deemed the previous behavior to be too confusing, unexpected and actually   not
particularlyuseful.
 

I see the current v10 release notes have failed miserably at documenting
this :-(.  Will try to improve that.
        regards, tom lane



Re: [HACKERS] generate_series regression 9.6->10

From
Paul Ramsey
Date:
Thanks Tom. This showed up in a regression test of ours that built the test data using generate_series, so it's not a critical production issue or anything, just a surprise change in behaviour.

P.

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Paul Ramsey <pramsey@cleverelephant.ca> writes:
> The behaviour of generate_series seems to have changed a little, at least
> in conjunction w/ CTEs.

What's changed is the behavior of multiple SRFs in a SELECT's targetlist,
cf

https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git&a=commitdiff&h=69f4b9c85f168ae006929eec44fc44d569e846b9

specifically this comment:

    While moving SRF evaluation to ProjectSet would allow to retain the old
    "least common multiple" behavior when multiple SRFs are present in one
    targetlist (i.e.  continue returning rows until all SRFs are at the end of
    their input at the same time), we decided to instead only return rows till
    all SRFs are exhausted, returning NULL for already exhausted ones.  We
    deemed the previous behavior to be too confusing, unexpected and actually
    not particularly useful.

I see the current v10 release notes have failed miserably at documenting
this :-(.  Will try to improve that.

                        regards, tom lane