Skip to content
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

Wrong size calculation in BATsubjoin #3724

Closed
monetdb-team opened this issue Nov 30, 2020 · 0 comments
Closed

Wrong size calculation in BATsubjoin #3724

monetdb-team opened this issue Nov 30, 2020 · 0 comments

Comments

@monetdb-team
Copy link

@monetdb-team monetdb-team commented Nov 30, 2020

Date: 2015-05-11 17:20:09 +0200
From: @swingbit
To: MonetDB5 devs <>
Version: 11.19.11 (Oct2014-SP3)
CC: @njnes

Last updated: 2015-08-28 13:42:54 +0200

Comment 20861

Date: 2015-05-11 17:20:09 +0200
From: @swingbit

User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/42.0.2311.135 Safari/537.36
Build Identifier:

While looking at a different issue, I noticed with gdb that lsize and rsize as computed in BATsubjoin are way too large.

/* some statistics to help us decide */
lsize = (BUN) (BATcount(l) * (Tsize(l) + (l->T->vheap ? l->T->vheap->size : 0) + 2 * sizeof(BUN)));
rsize = (BUN) (BATcount(r) * (Tsize(r) + (r->T->vheap ? r->T->vheap->size : 0) + 2 * sizeof(BUN)));

I suspect a parenthesis is misplaced and this should be:

lsize = (BUN) (BATcount(l) * (Tsize(l)) + (l->T->vheap ? l->T->vheap->size : 0) + 2 * sizeof(BUN));
rsize = (BUN) (BATcount(r) * (Tsize(r)) + (r->T->vheap ? r->T->vheap->size : 0) + 2 * sizeof(BUN));

Reproducible: Always

Comment 20992

Date: 2015-07-10 21:30:22 +0200
From: @njnes

your so right, applied the changes to the jul2015 branch

Comment 21222

Date: 2015-08-28 13:42:54 +0200
From: @sjoerdmullender

Jul2015 has been released.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
1 participant