3 ms·
I encountered a similar bug to this (basic JOIN semantics error) about 4 years ago. Though it had been fixed in the head version by the time I found it, it had
by colanderman 10y ago
I encountered a similar bug to this (basic JOIN semantics error) about 4 years ago. Though it had been fixed in the head version by the time I found it, it had clearly been present for years. Turned me off to SQLite ever since -- it's painful not to be able to trust query results.
Goes to show that even literal "millions and millions of test cases" don't catch bugs you didn't think of in the first place. This is a domain where a theorem prover could really shine -- checking transformation invariance in a non-Turing-complete language.
- PopsiclePete 10y agoI doubt "enterprise" databases like Oracle or MS SQL Server don't have similar bugs. Actually, what non-trivial software doesn't have bugs? I had the opposite reaction to you from reading this bug. They fixed it amazingly quickly, after it was reported, no fuss.
- colanderman 10y agoI've used Postgres a lot more and for more complex queries than SQLite, and have never encountered nor heard of a query semantics bug with it (though I'm sure they exist). I know that is total anecdata, but my experience with Postgres is – whether thanks to more collective query hours, better testing methodology, or simply higher quality design – an experience that leads me to trust it more than SQLite.