Jak debugować błędy SQL za pomocą quizu AI

Odpowiedzi i wyjaśnienia pojawiają się w miarę rozwiązywania quizu.

1. Two joined tables both contain id, and the intended output is the customer's identifier. Which repair addresses the ambiguity?
   • Qualify id with the customer table's alias
   • Choose either id because matching names imply identical values
   • Add every column to GROUP BY
   • Rename the output heading without qualifying the reference
2. Why can adding every selected column to GROUP BY be a poor repair for a customer-total report?
   • It guarantees that all selected dates belong to the same customer summary
   • It preserves customer-level totals regardless of the added columns
   • It may change the result from one row per customer to a finer grouping
   • It automatically chooses the latest order date within each customer
3. An error points near the end of an expression. Why should earlier tokens also be inspected?
   • The marked token must always be the first incorrect token
   • Only the final clause can affect parsing near the end
   • Name-resolution errors can always be fixed by moving the marked token
   • An earlier missing comma or unmatched parenthesis can make a later token unexpected
4. Which information is most useful when asking AI to reproduce an SQL failure?
   • The query and a paraphrase of the error, without identifying the engine
   • The engine, exact error, query, minimal schema and representative test rows
   • Only a successful version from another database engine
   • Only the expected output, without the query or schema
5. A repaired SQL statement executes successfully. Which check still matters?
   • Whether its rows, totals and null behavior match the intended result
   • Whether it returns the same row count, without checking values
   • Whether it has the same output headings, without checking totals
   • Whether it runs once without an error on an empty fixture
6. A cast succeeds for most rows but fails for one unexpected text value. Which debugging step targets that failure?
   • Remove the type information from the prompt
   • Assume the query is syntactically invalid in every context
   • Include the failing value in a reduced test fixture
   • Add an unrelated join to change the execution plan
7. Why is PostgreSQL EXPLAIN ANALYZE inappropriate as a harmless syntax check for an untrusted modifying query?
   • It never reports actual execution behavior
   • It only checks table aliases
   • It always skips the statement's write operations
   • It actually executes the statement
8. An application query uses bound parameters. Why should a reproduction preserve their types?
   • Parameter types cannot affect a database operation
   • Substituted literals can behave differently from the original bound values
   • Every parameter should be converted to text before testing
   • A bound parameter always removes the need to check casts