Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

window function row_number somtimes return wrong row number #11612

Closed
chrissata opened this issue Aug 5, 2019 · 3 comments · Fixed by #11637
Closed

window function row_number somtimes return wrong row number #11612

chrissata opened this issue Aug 5, 2019 · 3 comments · Fixed by #11637
Assignees
Labels
sig/execution SIG execution type/bug The issue is confirmed as a bug.

Comments

@chrissata
Copy link

chrissata commented Aug 5, 2019

Bug Report

Please answer these questions before submitting your issue. Thanks!

  1. What did you do?
    If possible, provide a recipe for reproducing the error.
    1) PREPARE TABLE AND DATA...
    CREATE TABLE testtable (
    id bigint(20) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
    deleted smallint(6) NOT NULL,
    m_id bigint(20) DEFAULT NULL,
    title varchar(250) NOT NULL,
    seq bigint(20) DEFAULT '0',
    val varchar(64) DEFAULT '31',
    online smallint(6) DEFAULT '1',
    PRIMARY KEY (id),
    KEY ix_testtable_deleted (deleted),
    KEY testtable_mid_seq (m_id,seq)
    ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8 COLLATE=utf8_bin;

INSERT INTO testtable VALUES (1000,0,1001,'last',330,'330',1),(1001,0,1001,'',329,'329',1),(1002,0,1001,'',328,'328',1),(1003,0,1001,'',327,'328',1),(1004,0,1001,'',326,'328',1),(1005,0,1001,'',325,'328',1),(1006,0,1001,'x',324,'328',1),(1007,0,1001,'x',323,'328',1),(1008,0,1001,'x22',322,'328',1),(1009,0,1001,'x21',321,'328',1),(1010,0,1001,'x20',320,'328',1),(1011,0,1001,'x19',319,'328',1),(1012,0,1001,'x18',318,'328',1),(1013,0,1001,'x17',317,'328',1),(1014,0,1001,'x16',316,'328',1),(1015,0,1001,'x15',315,'328',1),(1016,0,1001,'x14',314,'328',1),(1017,0,1001,'x13',313,'328',1),(1018,0,1001,'x12',312,'328',1),(1019,0,1001,'x11',311,'328',1),(1020,0,1001,'x10',310,'328',1),(1021,0,1001,'x09',309,'328',1),(1022,0,1001,'x08',308,'328',1),(1023,0,1001,'x08',307,'328',1),(1024,0,1001,'x07',307,'328',1),(1025,0,1001,'x06',306,'328',1),(1026,0,1001,'x04',305,'328',1),(1027,0,1001,'x044',304,'328',1),(1028,0,1001,'x03',303,'328',1),(1029,0,1001,'x02',302,'328',1),(1030,0,1001,'x01',301,'328',1),(1031,0,1001,'x00',300,'328',1),(1032,0,1001,'x299',299,'328',1),(1033,0,1001,'x298',298,'328',1),(31034,0,1000,'abc',390,'399',1),(31035,0,1000,'abcd',391,'399',1),(31036,0,1000,'abcde',377,'309',1),(31037,0,1000,'abcde',499,'309',1),(31038,0,1000,'abcdef',499,'309',1),(31039,0,1000,'abcdefg',499,'319',1),(31040,0,1003,'aa',298,'328',1),(31041,0,1003,'aa',298,'328',1),(31042,0,1003,'aa',298,'328',1),(31043,0,1004,'a4',300,'328',1),(31044,0,1004,'a4',298,'328',1);

2) do query.
SELECT p.id, p.title, p.seq, p.m_id, p.val, row_number() over(PARTITION BY p.m_id ORDER BYp.seq DESC) AS row_num FROM testtable p WHERE p.deleted = 0 AND p.online = 1 AND p.m_id IN (1000,1001, 1002,1003,1004);

  1. What did you expect to see?
    for records with m_id=1003, there row_num are correct.

  2. What did you see instead?

+-------+---------+------+------+------+----------+
| id | title | seq | m_id | val | rank_num |
+-------+---------+------+------+------+----------+
| 31037 | abcde | 499 | 1000 | 309 | 1 |
| 31038 | abcdef | 499 | 1000 | 309 | 2 |
| 31039 | abcdefg | 499 | 1000 | 319 | 3 |
| 31035 | abcd | 391 | 1000 | 399 | 4 |
| 31034 | abc | 390 | 1000 | 399 | 5 |
| 31036 | abcde | 377 | 1000 | 309 | 6 |
| 1000 | last | 330 | 1001 | 330 | 1 |
| 1001 | | 329 | 1001 | 329 | 2 |
| 1002 | | 328 | 1001 | 328 | 3 |
| 1003 | | 327 | 1001 | 328 | 4 |
| 1004 | | 326 | 1001 | 328 | 5 |
| 1005 | | 325 | 1001 | 328 | 6 |
| 1006 | x | 324 | 1001 | 328 | 7 |
| 1007 | x | 323 | 1001 | 328 | 8 |
| 1008 | x22 | 322 | 1001 | 328 | 9 |
| 1009 | x21 | 321 | 1001 | 328 | 10 |
| 1010 | x20 | 320 | 1001 | 328 | 11 |
| 1011 | x19 | 319 | 1001 | 328 | 12 |
| 1012 | x18 | 318 | 1001 | 328 | 13 |
| 1013 | x17 | 317 | 1001 | 328 | 14 |
| 1014 | x16 | 316 | 1001 | 328 | 15 |
| 1015 | x15 | 315 | 1001 | 328 | 16 |
| 1016 | x14 | 314 | 1001 | 328 | 17 |
| 1017 | x13 | 313 | 1001 | 328 | 18 |
| 1018 | x12 | 312 | 1001 | 328 | 19 |
| 1019 | x11 | 311 | 1001 | 328 | 20 |
| 1020 | x10 | 310 | 1001 | 328 | 21 |
| 1021 | x09 | 309 | 1001 | 328 | 22 |
| 1022 | x08 | 308 | 1001 | 328 | 23 |
| 1024 | x07 | 307 | 1001 | 328 | 24 |
| 1023 | x08 | 307 | 1001 | 328 | 25 |
| 1025 | x06 | 306 | 1001 | 328 | 26 |
| 1032 | aa | 298 | 1001 | 328 | 27 |
| 31040 | aa | 298 | 1003 | 328 | 28 |
| 31041 | aa | 298 | 1003 | 328 | 1 |
| 31042 | aa | 298 | 1003 | 328 | 2 |

| 31043 | a4 | 300 | 1004 | 328 | 1 |
| 31044 | a4 | 298 | 1004 | 328 | 2 |
+-------+---------+------+------+------+----------+
38 rows in set (0.01 sec)

  1. What version of TiDB are you using (tidb-server -V or run select tidb_version(); on TiDB)?

mysql> select version();
+--------------------+
| version() |
+--------------------+
| 5.7.25-TiDB-v3.0.1 |
+--------------------+
1 row in set (0.00 sec)

mysql> show variables like '%sql_mode%';
+---------------+--------------------------------------------+
| Variable_name | Value |
+---------------+--------------------------------------------+
| sql_mode | STRICT_TRANS_TABLES,NO_ENGINE_SUBSTITUTION |
+---------------+--------------------------------------------+
1 row in set (0.00 sec)

@alivxxx
Copy link
Contributor

alivxxx commented Aug 5, 2019

Could you point out why is it wrong? And did you post the wrong result since the result column is rank_num, not row_num?

@chrissata
Copy link
Author

Hi,
The error is that, for one of the returned records, of which the id is 31040, the final row_number column value should be 1 rather than 28.
| 31040 | aa | 298 | 1003 | 328 | 28 |

The column name "rank_num" is just an so-called alias name which has nothing to do with the result since I used "row_number() over " in my query which is pretty clear.

@zimulala
Copy link
Contributor

zimulala commented Aug 5, 2019

PTAL @lamxTyler

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
sig/execution SIG execution type/bug The issue is confirmed as a bug.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants