You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
User
name Text
age Int
deriving Show
Organization
Id Text default=uuid_generate_v1mc()
name Text
UserOrganization
user UserId
organization OrganizationId
Primary user organization
You can write the following code in Esqueleto
usersWithOrganizations3
:: SqlPersistT IO [(Entity User, Maybe (Entity UserOrganization))]
usersWithOrganizations3 =
select $ do
(u :& uo) <- from $
table @User
`leftJoin`
table @UserOrganization
`on` \(_ :& uo) -> isNothing (uo ?. #user) -- [1]
pure (u, uo)
Note the isNothing on field access of an entity. This corresponds to the (legal) SQL:
SELECT *
FROM "user" u LEFT JOIN user_organization uo ON uo.user IS NULL
I would like to argue that this should be a compiler error. uo.user can never be null.
Of course, the return type of the function is OK -- the result of the join may be a row where the UserOrganization is absent.
However, in the on condition, the user organization cannot be absent. For ALL join types, the on condition is tried against candidate rows from each table. It is impossible to have a non-existent candidate. (I haven't looked at a SQL standard but the documentation for joins in Postgres as well as in Sqlite explain that left joins are implemented in terms of inner joins, with extra rows added afterwards.)
My feeling is that this issue is of low impact. The current behavior is "safe" because it's safe to promote something that is non-nullable into something that is nullable, and while having to handle the Maybe is a little annoying (see e.g. #298), in general we can just wrap whatever other operand we want in the join condition with a Just. It would be nice if the above example didn't compile, but if it didn't, we could probably generate other nonsensical SQL queries using isNothing (just $ uo ^. #user).
On the other hand, fixing the issue might be tricky. Currently we rely on the type produced by the join being concordant with the type of the condition in the on. We don't want to throw that away, since it is only the last table where we may assume the presence of the candidate. Consider this:
SELECT *
FROM "user" u LEFT JOIN user_organization uo ON FALSE
LEFT JOIN organization o ON COALESCE(ou.id, 'Engineering') = o.id
Here, use of ou.id in the join condition for the third table is not guaranteed to be present. In Haskell, we can write something like:
usersWithOrganizations3
:: SqlPersistT IO [(Entity User, Maybe (Entity UserOrganization))]
usersWithOrganizations3 =
select $ do
(u :& uo :& _) <- from $
table @User
`leftJoin`
table @UserOrganization
`on` (\(_ :& uo) -> val False)
`leftJoin`
table @Organization
`on` (\(_ :& uo :& o) -> just (coalesceDefault [uo ?. #organization] (val $ OrganizationKey "Engineering")) ==. o ?. #id)
pure (u, uo)
Here, the ou in the last on clause is correctly a Maybe.
However, again it would be better if `o` was not a `Maybe`. Then we could write it like this:
usersWithOrganizations3
:: SqlPersistT IO [(Entity User, Maybe (Entity UserOrganization))]
usersWithOrganizations3 =
select $ do
(u :& uo :& _) <- from $
table @User
`leftJoin`
table @UserOrganization
`on` (\(_ :& uo) -> val False)
`leftJoin`
table @Organization
`on` (\(_ :& uo :& o) -> coalesceDefault [uo ?. #organization] (val $ OrganizationKey "Engineering") ==. o ^. #id)
pure (u, uo)
I totally understand if this bug never gets fixed and even if we want to close it but I found it curious and wanted to make sure the justification was written down somewhere.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Given these models:
You can write the following code in Esqueleto
Note the
isNothing
on field access of an entity. This corresponds to the (legal) SQL:I would like to argue that this should be a compiler error.
uo.user
can never be null.Of course, the return type of the function is OK -- the result of the join may be a row where the
UserOrganization
is absent.However, in the
on
condition, the user organization cannot be absent. For ALL join types, theon
condition is tried against candidate rows from each table. It is impossible to have a non-existent candidate. (I haven't looked at a SQL standard but the documentation for joins in Postgres as well as in Sqlite explain that left joins are implemented in terms of inner joins, with extra rows added afterwards.)My feeling is that this issue is of low impact. The current behavior is "safe" because it's safe to promote something that is non-nullable into something that is nullable, and while having to handle the
Maybe
is a little annoying (see e.g. #298), in general we can just wrap whatever other operand we want in the join condition with aJust
. It would be nice if the above example didn't compile, but if it didn't, we could probably generate other nonsensical SQL queries usingisNothing (just $ uo ^. #user)
.On the other hand, fixing the issue might be tricky. Currently we rely on the type produced by the join being concordant with the type of the condition in the
on
. We don't want to throw that away, since it is only the last table where we may assume the presence of the candidate. Consider this:Here, use of
ou.id
in the join condition for the third table is not guaranteed to be present. In Haskell, we can write something like:Here, the
ou
in the laston
clause is correctly aMaybe
.However, again it would be better if `o` was not a `Maybe`. Then we could write it like this:
I totally understand if this bug never gets fixed and even if we want to close it but I found it curious and wanted to make sure the justification was written down somewhere.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: