Fix for BUG#11185.

  
  The source of the problem is in Field_longlong::cmp. If 'this' is
  an unsigned number, the method casts both the current value, and
  the constant that we compare with to an unsigned number. As a
  result if the constant we compare with is a negative number, it
  wraps to some unsigned number, and the comparison is incorrect.
  
  When the optimizer chooses the "range" access method, this problem
  causes handler::read_range_next to reject the current key when the
  upper bound key is a negative number because handler::compare_key
  incorrectly considers the positive and negative keys to be equal.
  
  The current patch does not correct the source of the problem in
  Field_longlong::cmp because it is not easy to propagate sign
  information about the constant at query execution time. Instead
  the patch changes the range optimizer so that it never compares
  unsiged fields with negative constants. As an added benefit,
  queries that do such comparisons will execute faster because
  the range optimizer replaces conditions like:
  (a) (unsigned_int [< | <=] negative_constant) == FALSE
  (b) (unsigned_int [> | >=] negative_constant) == TRUE
  with the corresponding constants.
  In some cases this may even result in constant time execution.

1 files changed, 61 insertions, 1 deletions

diff --git a/mysql-test/r/range.result b/mysql-test/r/range.result
index c7d27a8e60d..16bf9a8247a 100644
--- a/mysql-test/r/range.result
+++ b/mysql-test/r/range.result
@@ -544,11 +544,71 @@ count(*)
 1
 select count(*) from t2 where x > -16;
 count(*)
-1
+2
 select count(*) from t2 where x = 18446744073709551601;
 count(*)
 0
 drop table t1,t2;
+create table t1 (x bigint unsigned not null primary key) engine=innodb;
+insert into t1(x) values (0xfffffffffffffff0);
+insert into t1(x) values (0xfffffffffffffff1);
+select * from t1;
+x
+18446744073709551600
+18446744073709551601
+select count(*) from t1 where x>0;
+count(*)
+2
+select count(*) from t1 where x=0;
+count(*)
+0
+select count(*) from t1 where x<0;
+count(*)
+0
+select count(*) from t1 where x < -16;
+count(*)
+0
+select count(*) from t1 where x = -16;
+count(*)
+0
+select count(*) from t1 where x > -16;
+count(*)
+2
+select count(*) from t1 where x = 18446744073709551601;
+count(*)
+1
+drop table t1;
+create table t1 (a bigint unsigned);
+create index t1i on t1(a);
+insert into t1 select 18446744073709551615;
+insert into t1 select 18446744073709551614;
+explain select * from t1 where a <> -1;
+id	select_type	table	type	possible_keys	key	key_len	ref	rows	Extra
+1	SIMPLE	t1	index	t1i	t1i	9	NULL	2	Using where; Using index
+select * from t1 where a <> -1;
+a
+18446744073709551614
+18446744073709551615
+explain select * from t1 where a > -1 or a < -1;
+id	select_type	table	type	possible_keys	key	key_len	ref	rows	Extra
+1	SIMPLE	t1	index	t1i	t1i	9	NULL	2	Using where; Using index
+select * from t1 where a > -1 or a < -1;
+a
+18446744073709551614
+18446744073709551615
+explain select * from t1 where a > -1;
+id	select_type	table	type	possible_keys	key	key_len	ref	rows	Extra
+1	SIMPLE	t1	index	t1i	t1i	9	NULL	2	Using where; Using index
+select * from t1 where a > -1;
+a
+18446744073709551614
+18446744073709551615
+explain select * from t1 where a < -1;
+id	select_type	table	type	possible_keys	key	key_len	ref	rows	Extra
+1	SIMPLE	NULL	NULL	NULL	NULL	NULL	NULL	NULL	Impossible WHERE noticed after reading const tables
+select * from t1 where a < -1;
+a
+drop table t1;
 set names latin1;
 create table t1 (a char(10), b text, key (a)) character set latin1;
 INSERT INTO t1 (a) VALUES