When `prepare()` is called with an empty string it should throw an error
(e.g `ApiMisuse` in rusqlite). I'm testing only in JS but it should
throw to any bind.
Reviewed-by: Jussi Saurio <jussi.saurio@gmail.com>
Closes#1473
Coalesce adjacent free blocks during `page_free_array()` in
`core/storage/btree`.
Instead of immediately passing free cells to `free_cell_range()`, buffer
up to 10 free cells and try to merge adjacent free blocks. Break on the
first merge to avoid time complexity, `free_cell_range()` coalesces
blocks afterwards anyways. This follows SQLite's [`pageFreeArray()`](htt
ps://github.com/sqlite/sqlite/blob/d7324103b196c572a98724a5658970b4000b8
c39/src/btree.c#L7729) implementation.
Removed this TODO:
```rust
fn page_free_array( . . )
.
.
// TODO: implement fancy smart free block coalescing procedure instead of dumb free to
// then defragment
```
Reviewed-by: Jussi Saurio <jussi.saurio@gmail.com>
Closes#1448
This PR fixes two bugs in `CREATE VIRTUAL TABLE` (see individual commits
for details).
I added a test in `extensions.py` instead of the TCL test suite because
it's currently more convenient - there’s no existing framework for
loading extensions in TCL tests. However, I believe the test should
eventually be moved to TCL, as it verifies behavior expected to be
compatible with SQLite and is independent of any specific extension.
I've seen a PR proposing to migrate TCL tests to Rust, so please let me
know if moving this test to TCL would still be valuable.
Reviewed-by: Preston Thorpe (@PThorpe92)
Closes#1471
After reading #1123, I wanted to see what optimizations I could do.
Sqlite optimizes `count` aggregation for the following case: `SELECT
count() FROM <tbl>`. This is so widely used, that they made an
optimization just for it in the form of the `COUNT` opcode.
This PR thus implements this optimization by creating the `COUNT`
opcode, and checking in the select emitter if we the query is a Simple
Count Query. If it is, we just emit the Opcode instead of going through
a Rewind loop, saving on execution time.
The screenshots below show a huge decrease in execution time.
- **Main**
<img width="383" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-
attachments/assets/99a9dec4-e7c5-41db-ba67-4eafa80dd2e6" />
- **Count Optimization**
<img width="435" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-
attachments/assets/e93b3233-92e6-4736-aa60-b52b2477179f" />
Reviewed-by: Jussi Saurio <jussi.saurio@gmail.com>
Closes#1443
Fixes a runtime panic caused by failing to halt the virtual machine
after executing CREATE VIRTUAL TABLE IF NOT EXISTS.
Previously resulted in:
thread 'main' panicked at core/vdbe/mod.rs:408:52:
index out of bounds: the len is 3 but the index is 3
This commit adds suport for DROP INDEX.
Bytecode produced by this commit differs from SQLITE's bytecode, main
reason we don't do autovacuum or repacking of pages like SQLITE does.
Closes#1280Closes#1444
The following code reproduces the leak (memory usage increases over
time):
```rust
#[tokio::main]
async fn main() {
let db = Builder::new_local(":memory:").build().await.unwrap();
let conn = db.connect().unwrap();
conn.execute("SELECT load_extension('./target/debug/liblimbo_series');", ())
.await
.unwrap();
loop {
conn.execute("SELECT * FROM generate_series(1,10,2);", ())
.await
.unwrap();
}
}
```
After switching to the system allocator, the leak becomes detectable
with Valgrind:
```
32,000 bytes in 1,000 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 24 of 24
at 0x538580F: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:446)
by 0x62E15FA: alloc::alloc::alloc (alloc.rs:99)
by 0x62E172C: alloc::alloc::Global::alloc_impl (alloc.rs:192)
by 0x62E1530: allocate (alloc.rs:254)
by 0x62E1530: alloc::alloc::exchange_malloc (alloc.rs:349)
by 0x62E0271: new<limbo_series::GenerateSeriesCursor> (boxed.rs:257)
by 0x62E0271: open_GenerateSeriesVTab (lib.rs:19)
by 0x425D8FA: limbo_core::VirtualTable::open (lib.rs:732)
by 0x4285DDA: limbo_core::vdbe::execute::op_vopen (execute.rs:890)
by 0x42351E8: limbo_core::vdbe::Program::step (mod.rs:396)
by 0x425C638: limbo_core::Statement::step (lib.rs:610)
by 0x40DB238: limbo::Statement::execute::{{closure}} (lib.rs:181)
by 0x40D9EAF: limbo::Connection::execute::{{closure}} (lib.rs:109)
by 0x40D54A1: example::main::{{closure}} (example.rs:26)
```
Interestingly, when using mimalloc, neither Valgrind nor mimalloc’s
internal statistics report the leak.
Reviewed-by: Preston Thorpe (@PThorpe92)
Closes#1447
This PR is an enabler for our (Coming Soon ™️ ) join reordering
optimizer -- simply adds the notion of a join order to the current query
execution. This PR does not do any join ordering -- the join order is
always the same as expressed in the SQL query.
Reviewed-by: Preston Thorpe (@PThorpe92)
Closes#1439
The following code reproduces the leak, with memory usage increasing
over time:
```
#[tokio::main]
async fn main() {
let db = Builder::new_local(":memory:").build().await.unwrap();
let conn = db.connect().unwrap();
conn.execute("SELECT load_extension('./target/debug/liblimbo_series');", ())
.await
.unwrap();
loop {
conn.execute("SELECT * FROM generate_series(1,10,2);", ())
.await
.unwrap();
}
}
```
After switching to the system allocator, the leak becomes detectable
with Valgrind:
```
32,000 bytes in 1,000 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 24 of 24
at 0x538580F: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:446)
by 0x62E15FA: alloc::alloc::alloc (alloc.rs:99)
by 0x62E172C: alloc::alloc::Global::alloc_impl (alloc.rs:192)
by 0x62E1530: allocate (alloc.rs:254)
by 0x62E1530: alloc::alloc::exchange_malloc (alloc.rs:349)
by 0x62E0271: new<limbo_series::GenerateSeriesCursor> (boxed.rs:257)
by 0x62E0271: open_GenerateSeriesVTab (lib.rs:19)
by 0x425D8FA: limbo_core::VirtualTable::open (lib.rs:732)
by 0x4285DDA: limbo_core::vdbe::execute::op_vopen (execute.rs:890)
by 0x42351E8: limbo_core::vdbe::Program::step (mod.rs:396)
by 0x425C638: limbo_core::Statement::step (lib.rs:610)
by 0x40DB238: limbo::Statement::execute::{{closure}} (lib.rs:181)
by 0x40D9EAF: limbo::Connection::execute::{{closure}} (lib.rs:109)
by 0x40D54A1: example::main::{{closure}} (example.rs:26)
```
Interestingly, when using mimalloc, neither Valgrind nor mimalloc’s
internal statistics report the leak.
