Скачать или смотреть Resolving the Inconsistent Number of Rows Issue with PostgreSQL Function Calls in WHERE Clauses

Discover how to address the `inconsistent row return` problem when using PostgreSQL functions in a WHERE clause by understanding their behavior during execution.
---
This video is based on the question https://stackoverflow.com/q/72691490/ asked by the user 'Narwe' ( https://stackoverflow.com/u/387070/ ) and on the answer https://stackoverflow.com/a/72692293/ provided by the user 'Narwe' ( https://stackoverflow.com/u/387070/ ) at 'Stack Overflow' website. Thanks to these great users and Stackexchange community for their contributions.

Visit these links for original content and any more details, such as alternate solutions, latest updates/developments on topic, comments, revision history etc. For example, the original title of the Question was: PostgreSQL function results in inconsistent number of rows when used in WHERE clause

Also, Content (except music) licensed under CC BY-SA https://meta.stackexchange.com/help/l...
The original Question post is licensed under the 'CC BY-SA 4.0' ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/... ) license, and the original Answer post is licensed under the 'CC BY-SA 4.0' ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/... ) license.

If anything seems off to you, please feel free to write me at vlogize [AT] gmail [DOT] com.
---
Unraveling the Mystery of Inconsistent Row Returns in PostgreSQL

When working with PostgreSQL, developers often encounter puzzling issues that can lead to unexpected results. One such problem arises when a function is called within a WHERE clause, resulting in an inconsistent number of rows returned. In this guide, we’ll dissect the issue as experienced with the function experiments.get_random_experiment_group(experiment) and provide clarity on how these situations arise along with their solutions.

The Problem Explained

In our example, the function behaves perfectly when called standalone:

[[See Video to Reveal this Text or Code Snippet]]

This call consistently returns one of the two group IDs associated with the specified experiment.

However, invoking the function within a WHERE clause results in erratic behavior, sometimes returning one, two, or even zero rows:

[[See Video to Reveal this Text or Code Snippet]]

The inconsistency here raises the question: Why does this happen?

Insights into PostgreSQL Function Behavior

The root of this inconsistency lies in how PostgreSQL processes the function call within the WHERE clause. When the function is invoked in this way, PostgreSQL executes the function for each row in the "group" table. This means:

The function generates a random ID for each row being evaluated.

Rows are returned only if the randomly generated ID matches the group ID of that specific row.

This explains why the results can vary: out of many rows, only a select few may happen to match the randomly generated ID, leading to different outcomes each time the query runs.

Understanding the Function Logic

Let’s briefly review the function implementation to shed light on how it operates:

[[See Video to Reveal this Text or Code Snippet]]

Function Components Breakdown

CTE (Common Table Expression): This constructs a random number based on the sum of proportions for the corresponding experiment groups.

Random Selection Logic: The function selects a group ID based on cumulative probability, ensuring that selections align with defined proportions.

Possible Solutions

To work around the problem of inconsistent row returns when using the function in a WHERE clause, you might consider the following approaches:

Store the Function Result in a Variable: Execute the function once and store the result in a temporary variable, then use that variable in your WHERE clause.

[[See Video to Reveal this Text or Code Snippet]]

Use a Subquery: Like the above, using a subquery to determine the random group ID results in a single execution rather than multiple:

[[See Video to Reveal this Text or Code Snippet]]

Each of these approaches ensures that you maintain consistency in your row returns and utilize the randomness effectively without variation in results based on row evaluations.

Conclusion

Understanding the underlying behavior of PostgreSQL functions can greatly enhance your ability to troubleshoot and resolve issues like inconsistent row returns in queries. By implementing approaches that limit function calls within a WHERE clause, you can ensure a more predictable and reliable outcome. The key takeaway is to minimize executions of probabilistic functions across multiple rows in scenarios where you only need one random outcome.

By following best practices and thoroughly understanding your SQL functions, you can avoid common pitfalls and write more efficient queries.