We have halt and op_halt, doing essentially the same thing.
This PR unifies them. There is a minor difference between them now in
the way halt() handles auto-commit. My current understanding of the code
is that what we have in halt *is a bug*, which is already one bad
consequence of the duplication.
Closes#2631
We have halt and op_halt, doing essentially the same thing.
This PR unifies them. There is a minor difference between them now in
the way halt() handles auto-commit. My current understanding of the code
is that what we have in halt *is a bug*, which is already one bad
consequence of the duplication.
## Problem
There are several problems with our current statically allocated
`BufferPool`.
1. You cannot open two databases in the same process with different page
sizes, because the `BufferPool`'s `Arena`s will be locked forever into
the page size of the first database. This is the case regardless of
whether the two `Database`s are open at the same time, or if the first
is closed before the second is opened.
2. It is impossible to even write Rust tests for different page sizes
because of this, assuming the test uses a single process.
## Solution
Make `Database` own `BufferPool` instead of it being statically
allocated, so this problem goes away.
Note that I didn't touch the still statically-allocated
`TEMP_BUFFER_CACHE`, because it should continue to work regardless of
this change. It should only be a problem if the user has two or more
databases with different page sizes open simultaneously, because
`TEMP_BUFFER_CACHE` will only support one pool of a given page size at a
time, so the rest of the allocations will go through the global
allocator instead.
## Notes
I extracted this change out from #2569, because I didn't want it to be
smuggled in without being reviewed as an individual piece.
Reviewed-by: Avinash Sajjanshetty (@avinassh)
Closes#2596
Implements the unlikely(X) function. Removes runtime implementations of
likely(), unlikely() and likelihood(), replacing them with panics if
they reach the VDBE.
Reviewed-by: Jussi Saurio <jussi.saurio@gmail.com>
Closes#2559
Now that we actually implemented the statement parsing around views,
implementing normal SQLite views is relatively trivial, as they are just
an alias to a query.
We'll implement them now to get them out of the way, and then I'll go
back to DBSP
Reviewed-by: Jussi Saurio <jussi.saurio@gmail.com>
Closes#2591
Problem
There are several problems with our current statically allocated
`BufferPool`.
1. You cannot open two databases in the same process with different
page sizes, because the `BufferPool`'s `Arena`s will be locked forever
into the page size of the first database. This is the case regardless
of whether the two `Database`s are open at the same time, or if the first
is closed before the second is opened.
2. It is impossible to even write Rust tests for different page sizes because
of this, assuming the test uses a single process.
Solution
Make `Database` own `BufferPool` instead of it being statically allocated, so this
problem goes away.
Note that I didn't touch the still statically-allocated `TEMP_BUFFER_CACHE`, because
it should continue to work regardless of this change. It should only be a problem if
the user has two or more databases with different page sizes open simultaneously, because
`TEMP_BUFFER_CACHE` will only support one pool of a given page size at a time, so the rest
of the allocations will go through the global allocator instead.
Notes
I extracted this change out from #2569, because I didn't want it to be smuggled in without
being reviewed as an individual piece.
The op_insert function was incorrectly trying to capture an "old record"
for fresh INSERT operations when a table had dependent materialized
views. This caused a "Cannot delete: no current row" error because the
cursor wasn't positioned on any row for new inserts.
The issue was introduced in commit f38333b3 which refactored the state
machine for incremental view handling but didn't properly distinguish
between:
- Fresh INSERT operations (no old record exists)
- UPDATE operations without rowid change (old record should be captured)
- UPDATE operations with rowid change (already handled by DELETE)
This fix checks if cursor.rowid() returns a value before attempting to
capture the old record. If no row exists (fresh INSERT), we correctly
set old_record to None instead of erroring out.
I am also including tests to make sure this doesn't break. The reason I
didn't include tests earlier is that I didn't know it was possible to
run the tests under a flag. But in here, I am just adding the flag to
the execution script.
Reviewed-by: Jussi Saurio <jussi.saurio@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Preston Thorpe <preston@turso.tech>
Closes#2579
A lot of the structures we have - like the ones under Schema, are
specific for materialized views. In preparation to adding normal views,
rename them, so things are less confusing.
The op_insert function was incorrectly trying to capture an "old record"
for fresh INSERT operations when a table had dependent materialized views.
This caused a "Cannot delete: no current row" error because the cursor
wasn't positioned on any row for new inserts.
The issue was introduced in commit f38333b3 which refactored the state
machine for incremental view handling but didn't properly distinguish
between:
- Fresh INSERT operations (no old record exists)
- UPDATE operations without rowid change (old record should be captured)
- UPDATE operations with rowid change (already handled by DELETE)
This fix checks if cursor.rowid() returns a value before attempting to
capture the old record. If no row exists (fresh INSERT), we correctly
set old_record to None instead of erroring out.
I am also including tests to make sure this doesn't break. The reason I
didn't include tests earlier is that I didn't know it was possible to
run the tests under a flag. But in here, I am just adding the flag to
the execution script.
in #2521, I messed up and introduced improper calculation of the current
checkpoint's max safe frame (mostly due to incorrect comments that I had
left on the method).
The confusion partially stems from our lack of Busy handling at the
moment, but essentially when determining the max safe frame for all
readers, for passive mode we cannot simply `break` out of the loop when
we find a reader with a lower read mark than we have, because _another_
reader might have an even _lower_ read mark, and we could proceed with
the first mark < shared_max.
And for !passive modes, we still attempt to backfill with the same lower
frame, we just return `Busy` at the end, after backfilling what we can
(we just don't reset the log for restart/truncate).
Most of the changes in this PR is just the renaming the fields of
Checkpoint Result, because the names were confusing
Closes#2560
We have to update the Transaction State before checking for the Schema
Cookie so that we can rollback the transaction later on correctly.
Closes#2535Closes#2549
Mainly the performance impact here comes from removing some unnecessary
checks and inlining `read_integer_fast()` directly into `op_column()`,
but I also added some fiddly nano-optimizations for fun
On main, we are roughly 3.4x slower than sqlite on `SELECT * FROM users
LIMIT 100`, and here we are roughly 3.2x slower, which ain't much, but
it's honest work.
A more impactful optimization, but a much more annoying refactor, would
be #2304Closes#2516
- When the rowid is changed in UPDATE, it is handled as a combination of DELETE + INSERT,
so we dont need to delete the old values in that case
- We should only update the views after the operation on the btree is done
- A proper state machine is needed to handle IO yielding points
Convert Sorter code to use state machines and not ignore completions.
Also simplifies some logic that seemed redundant to me. Also, I was
getting some IO errors because we were opening one file per Chunk, so I
fixed this by using only one file per sorter, and just using offsets in
the file for each chunk.
Builds on top of #2520Closes#2473
Currently, the simulator complains of the following error:
```
Error: failed with error: 'attempt to multiply with overflow'
```
However, we don't enable views in the simulator so -- despite being an
issue -- we should never see this. Let's fix `op_delete()` some more not
to not even call rowid() unless view processing is enabled.
Implement very basic views using DBSP
This is just the bare minimum that I needed to convince myself that this
approach will work. The only views that we support are slices of the
main table: no aggregations, no joins, no projections.
* drop view is implemented.
* view population is implemented.
* deletes, inserts and updates are implemented.
much like indexes before, a flag must be passed to enable views.
Closes#2530
This is just the bare minimum that I needed to convince myself that this
approach will work. The only views that we support are slices of the
main table: no aggregations, no joins, no projections.
drop view is implemented.
view population is implemented.
deletes, inserts and updates are implemented.
much like indexes before, a flag must be passed to enable views.
When building views (soon), it will be important to know which table
is being deleted. Getting from the cursor id is very cumbersome.
What we are doing here is symmetrical to op_insert, and sqlite also
passes table information in one of the registers (p4)
