Update test script analyze3.test to account for the fact that SQLite now prefers a full-table scan over a non-covering index scan that visits a large percentage of the table rows.

FossilOrigin-Name: 35f46a55d866b9a87c1321aab8e0cfe86ccadb93

manifest

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
-C Modify\sinternal\sfunction\swhereLoopAdjustCost()\sso\sthat\sit\sdoes\snot\sprefer\sa\sskip-scan\sover\sa\sregular\sindex\sscan\seven\sif\sthe\sregular\sscan\suses\sa\ssubset\sof\sthe\sWHERE\sterms\sused\sby\sthe\sskip-scan.
-D 2014-04-28T09:35:31.541
+C Update\stest\sscript\sanalyze3.test\sto\saccount\sfor\sthe\sfact\sthat\sSQLite\snow\sprefers\sa\sfull-table\sscan\sover\sa\snon-covering\sindex\sscan\sthat\svisits\sa\slarge\spercentage\sof\sthe\stable\srows.
+D 2014-04-28T10:00:59.075
 F Makefile.arm-wince-mingw32ce-gcc d6df77f1f48d690bd73162294bbba7f59507c72f
 F Makefile.in 2ef13430cd359f7b361bb863504e227b25cc7f81
 F Makefile.linux-gcc 91d710bdc4998cb015f39edf3cb314ec4f4d7e23
@@ -305,7 +305,7 @@ F test/alter4.test d6c011fa0d6227abba762498cafbb607c9609e93
 F test/altermalloc.test e81ac9657ed25c6c5bb09bebfa5a047cd8e4acfc
 F test/amatch1.test b5ae7065f042b7f4c1c922933f4700add50cdb9f
 F test/analyze.test 1772936d66471c65221e437b6d1999c3a03166c4
-F test/analyze3.test 412f690dfe95b337475e3e78a84a85d25f6f125d
+F test/analyze3.test bf41f0f680dd1e0d44eed5e769531e93a5320275
 F test/analyze4.test eff2df19b8dd84529966420f29ea52edc6b56213
 F test/analyze5.test 765c4e284aa69ca172772aa940946f55629bc8c4
 F test/analyze6.test d31defa011a561b938b4608d3538c1b4e0b5e92c
@@ -1162,7 +1162,7 @@ F tool/vdbe_profile.tcl 67746953071a9f8f2f668b73fe899074e2c6d8c1
 F tool/warnings-clang.sh f6aa929dc20ef1f856af04a730772f59283631d4
 F tool/warnings.sh d1a6de74685f360ab718efda6265994b99bbea01
 F tool/win/sqlite.vsix 030f3eeaf2cb811a3692ab9c14d021a75ce41fff
-P d491de62fce69d93e89f65f7713972f7c2c451f7
-R a36e9b880c1d76e2d8cd1072dd5871be
+P 88a5758dcce891eb7be15432ebdc9f80071d413b
+R a1e1c4a3f11d62d0bb62f198394034d8
 U dan
-Z 07995bb3734998fef6b8bca04739721a
+Z fd306a356911acfe444509c2efb0dade

manifest.uuid

@@ -1 +1 @@
-88a5758dcce891eb7be15432ebdc9f80071d413b
+35f46a55d866b9a87c1321aab8e0cfe86ccadb93

test/analyze3.test

@@ -103,12 +103,21 @@ do_test analyze3-1.1.1 {
   }
 } {1}
 
+do_execsql_test analyze3-1.1.x {
+  SELECT count(*) FROM t1 WHERE x>200 AND x<300;
+  SELECT count(*) FROM t1 WHERE x>0 AND x<1100;
+} {99 1000}
+
+# The first of the following two SELECT statements visits 99 rows. So
+# it is better to use the index. But the second visits every row in 
+# the table (1000 in total) so it is better to do a full-table scan.
+#
 do_eqp_test analyze3-1.1.2 {
   SELECT sum(y) FROM t1 WHERE x>200 AND x<300
 } {0 0 0 {SEARCH TABLE t1 USING INDEX i1 (x>? AND x<?)}}
 do_eqp_test analyze3-1.1.3 {
   SELECT sum(y) FROM t1 WHERE x>0 AND x<1100 
-} {0 0 0 {SEARCH TABLE t1 USING INDEX i1 (x>? AND x<?)}}
+} {0 0 0 {SCAN TABLE t1}}
 
 do_test analyze3-1.1.4 {
   sf_execsql { SELECT sum(y) FROM t1 WHERE x>200 AND x<300 }
@@ -125,17 +134,17 @@ do_test analyze3-1.1.6 {
 } {199 0 14850}
 do_test analyze3-1.1.7 {
   sf_execsql { SELECT sum(y) FROM t1 WHERE x>0 AND x<1100 }
-} {2000 0 499500}
+} {999 999 499500}
 do_test analyze3-1.1.8 {
   set l [string range "0" 0 end]
   set u [string range "1100" 0 end]
   sf_execsql { SELECT sum(y) FROM t1 WHERE x>$l AND x<$u }
-} {2000 0 499500}
+} {999 999 499500}
 do_test analyze3-1.1.9 {
   set l [expr int(0)]
   set u [expr int(1100)]
   sf_execsql { SELECT sum(y) FROM t1 WHERE x>$l AND x<$u }
-} {2000 0 499500}
+} {999 999 499500}
 
 
 # The following tests are similar to the block above. The difference is
@@ -152,12 +161,17 @@ do_test analyze3-1.2.1 {
     ANALYZE;
   }
 } {}
+do_execsql_test analyze3-2.1.x {
+  SELECT count(*) FROM t2 WHERE x>1 AND x<2;
+  SELECT count(*) FROM t2 WHERE x>0 AND x<99;
+} {200 990}
 do_eqp_test analyze3-1.2.2 {
   SELECT sum(y) FROM t2 WHERE x>1 AND x<2
 } {0 0 0 {SEARCH TABLE t2 USING INDEX i2 (x>? AND x<?)}}
 do_eqp_test analyze3-1.2.3 {
   SELECT sum(y) FROM t2 WHERE x>0 AND x<99
-} {0 0 0 {SEARCH TABLE t2 USING INDEX i2 (x>? AND x<?)}}
+} {0 0 0 {SCAN TABLE t2}}
+
 do_test analyze3-1.2.4 {
   sf_execsql { SELECT sum(y) FROM t2 WHERE x>12 AND x<20 }
 } {161 0 4760}
@@ -173,17 +187,17 @@ do_test analyze3-1.2.6 {
 } {161 0 integer integer 4760}
 do_test analyze3-1.2.7 {
   sf_execsql { SELECT sum(y) FROM t2 WHERE x>0 AND x<99 }
-} {1981 0 490555}
+} {999 999 490555}
 do_test analyze3-1.2.8 {
   set l [string range "0" 0 end]
   set u [string range "99" 0 end]
   sf_execsql {SELECT typeof($l), typeof($u), sum(y) FROM t2 WHERE x>$l AND x<$u}
-} {1981 0 text text 490555}
+} {999 999 text text 490555}
 do_test analyze3-1.2.9 {
   set l [expr int(0)]
   set u [expr int(99)]
   sf_execsql {SELECT typeof($l), typeof($u), sum(y) FROM t2 WHERE x>$l AND x<$u}
-} {1981 0 integer integer 490555}
+} {999 999 integer integer 490555}
 
 # Same tests a third time. This time, column x has INTEGER affinity and
 # is not the leftmost column of the table. This triggered a bug causing
@@ -199,12 +213,16 @@ do_test analyze3-1.3.1 {
     ANALYZE;
   }
 } {}
+do_execsql_test analyze3-1.3.x {
+  SELECT count(*) FROM t3 WHERE x>200 AND x<300;
+  SELECT count(*) FROM t3 WHERE x>0 AND x<1100
+} {99 1000}
 do_eqp_test analyze3-1.3.2 {
   SELECT sum(y) FROM t3 WHERE x>200 AND x<300
 } {0 0 0 {SEARCH TABLE t3 USING INDEX i3 (x>? AND x<?)}}
 do_eqp_test analyze3-1.3.3 {
   SELECT sum(y) FROM t3 WHERE x>0 AND x<1100
-} {0 0 0 {SEARCH TABLE t3 USING INDEX i3 (x>? AND x<?)}}
+} {0 0 0 {SCAN TABLE t3}}
 
 do_test analyze3-1.3.4 {
   sf_execsql { SELECT sum(y) FROM t3 WHERE x>200 AND x<300 }
@@ -221,17 +239,17 @@ do_test analyze3-1.3.6 {
 } {199 0 14850}
 do_test analyze3-1.3.7 {
   sf_execsql { SELECT sum(y) FROM t3 WHERE x>0 AND x<1100 }
-} {2000 0 499500}
+} {999 999 499500}
 do_test analyze3-1.3.8 {
   set l [string range "0" 0 end]
   set u [string range "1100" 0 end]
   sf_execsql { SELECT sum(y) FROM t3 WHERE x>$l AND x<$u }
-} {2000 0 499500}
+} {999 999 499500}
 do_test analyze3-1.3.9 {
   set l [expr int(0)]
   set u [expr int(1100)]
   sf_execsql { SELECT sum(y) FROM t3 WHERE x>$l AND x<$u }
-} {2000 0 499500}
+} {999 999 499500}
 
 #-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 # Test that the values of bound SQL variables may be used for the LIKE