I expected these numbers to be in sync, but was suprised to see that the
sequence skips a values after every generate series.

CREATE TABLE jefftest ( id serial, num int );
INSERT INTO jefftest (num) values (generate_series(1,10));
INSERT INTO jefftest (num) values (generate_series(11,20));
INSERT INTO jefftest (num) values (generate_series(21,30));

id | num
----+-----
1 | 1
2 | 2
3 | 3
4 | 4
5 | 5
6 | 6
7 | 7
8 | 8
9 | 9
10 | 10
12 | 11
13 | 12
14 | 13
15 | 14
16 | 15
17 | 16
18 | 17
19 | 18
20 | 19
21 | 20
23 | 21
24 | 22
25 | 23
26 | 24
27 | 25
28 | 26
29 | 27
30 | 28
31 | 29
32 | 30

But, if I just use single inserts, the sequence increments by one like I
expect:

jefftest=# INSERT INTO jefftest (num) VALUES (1);
INSERT 0 1
jefftest=# INSERT INTO jefftest (num) VALUES (2);
INSERT 0 1
jefftest=# INSERT INTO jefftest (num) VALUES (3);
INSERT 0 1
jefftest=# INSERT INTO jefftest (num) VALUES (4);
INSERT 0 1
jefftest=# INSERT INTO jefftest (num) VALUES (5);
INSERT 0 1
jefftest=# select * from jefftest;
id | num
----+-----
1 | 1
2 | 2
3 | 3
4 | 4
5 | 5
(5 rows)

Obviously, this doesn't hurt anything, I'm just curious why it skips one after
every generate_series insert?

--
Jeff Frost, Owner <jeff@frostconsultingllc.com>
Frost Consulting, LLC http://www.frostconsultingllc.com/
Phone: 650-780-7908 FAX: 650-649-1954

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Jeff Frost wrote:

> I expected these numbers to be in sync, but was suprised to see that the
> sequence skips a values after every generate series.
>
> CREATE TABLE jefftest ( id serial, num int );
> INSERT INTO jefftest (num) values (generate_series(1,10));
> INSERT INTO jefftest (num) values (generate_series(11,20));
> INSERT INTO jefftest (num) values (generate_series(21,30));

It seems to do what you'd expect if you do
INSERT INTO jefftest(num) select a from generate_series(1,10) as foo(a);
INSERT INTO jefftest(num) select a from generate_series(11,20) as foo(a);
INSERT INTO jefftest(num) select a from generate_series(21,30) as foo(a);

I tried a function that raises a notice and called it as
select f1(1), generate_series(1,10);
and got 11 notices so it looks like there's some kind of phantom involved.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match

Stephan Szabo wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Jeff Frost wrote:
>
>> I expected these numbers to be in sync, but was suprised to see that the
>> sequence skips a values after every generate series.
>>
>> CREATE TABLE jefftest ( id serial, num int );
>> INSERT INTO jefftest (num) values (generate_series(1,10));
>> INSERT INTO jefftest (num) values (generate_series(11,20));
>> INSERT INTO jefftest (num) values (generate_series(21,30));
>
> It seems to do what you'd expect if you do
> INSERT INTO jefftest(num) select a from generate_series(1,10) as foo(a);
> INSERT INTO jefftest(num) select a from generate_series(11,20) as foo(a);
> INSERT INTO jefftest(num) select a from generate_series(21,30) as foo(a);
>
> I tried a function that raises a notice and called it as
> select f1(1), generate_series(1,10);
> and got 11 notices so it looks like there's some kind of phantom involved.
>

That's interesting - might need an answer from the core hackers.
I am posting this to pgsql-hackers to get their comments and feedback.
I wouldn't count it as a bug but it could be regarded as undesirable
side effects.

My guess is that what appears to happen is that the sequence is created
by incrementing as part of the insert steps and the test to check the
end of the sequence is -
if last_inserted_number > end_sequence_number
rollback_last_insert

This would explain the skip in sequence numbers.

My thoughts are that -
if last_inserted_number < end_sequence_number
insert_again

would be a better way to approach this. Of course you would also need to
check that the (last_insert + step_size) isn't greater than the
end_sequence_number when the step_size is given.

I haven't looked at the code so I don't know if that fits easily into
the flow of things.

The as foo(a) test would fit this as the sequence is generated into the
equivalent of a temporary table the same as a subselect, then used as
insert data. The rollback would be applied during the temporary table
generation so won't show when the data is copied across to fulfill the
insert.

Maybe the planner or the generate series function could use a temporary
table to give the same results as select from generate_series()


--

Shane Ambler
pgSQL@Sheeky.Biz

Get Sheeky @ http://Sheeky.Biz

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Shane Ambler wrote:
> Stephan Szabo wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Jeff Frost wrote:
>>> I expected these numbers to be in sync, but was suprised to see that the
>>> sequence skips a values after every generate series.
>>>
>>> CREATE TABLE jefftest ( id serial, num int );
>>> INSERT INTO jefftest (num) values (generate_series(1,10));
>>> INSERT INTO jefftest (num) values (generate_series(11,20));
>>> INSERT INTO jefftest (num) values (generate_series(21,30));
>> It seems to do what you'd expect if you do
>> INSERT INTO jefftest(num) select a from generate_series(1,10) as foo(a);
>> INSERT INTO jefftest(num) select a from generate_series(11,20) as foo(a);
>> INSERT INTO jefftest(num) select a from generate_series(21,30) as foo(a);
>> I tried a function that raises a notice and called it as
>> select f1(1), generate_series(1,10);
>> and got 11 notices so it looks like there's some kind of phantom involved.
>
> That's interesting - might need an answer from the core hackers.
> I am posting this to pgsql-hackers to get their comments and feedback.
> I wouldn't count it as a bug but it could be regarded as undesirable side
> effects.

Don't use set-returning functions in "scalar context". If you put them
in the FROM clause, as Stephan says above, it works fine. Anywhere else
they have strange behavior and they are supported only because of
backwards compatibility.

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster