-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 206
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
Subsumption fix for issue #2189 #2204
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good to me. Thanks for the quick fix!
.decl R(a: number, b: number) | ||
R(2,2). | ||
|
||
.decl ES(x:number, y:number) btree_delete |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I thought the btree_delete keyword was no longer required ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Well - we still have it; if there is a subsumptive rule, btree_delete
will be automatically set.
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #2204 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 75.52% 75.52%
=======================================
Files 452 452
Lines 27394 27396 +2
=======================================
+ Hits 20689 20691 +2
Misses 6705 6705
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
looks good
This PR fixes issue #2189. The cluster of indices representing a relation requires fully defined comparators for all indices if the relation has a
btree_delete
qualifier.