What happens?

I ran into the following error while querying a few JSON files with the json extension from Node:

node: ../src/duckdb/extension/json/json_functions/read_json.cpp:251: void duckdb::ReadJSONFunction(duckdb::ClientContext&, duckdb::TableFunctionInput&, duckdb::DataChunk&): Assertion `result_vectors.size() == gstate.bind_data.names.size()' failed.

The JSON I am querying is essentially a linked list that looks like this:

// data_1.json
{
  "id": 1,
   "next": null
}
// data_2.json
{
  "id": 2,
  "next": 1
}

I am using a recursive CTE to query the files which looks like this:

CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW segments AS WITH RECURSIVE
raw_segments AS (
  SELECT *
  FROM read_json(
    '/tmp/duckdb-reprofOPqUc/*.json',
    columns = {
      id: 'INTEGER',
      next: 'INTEGER'
  })
),
sorted_segments AS (
  SELECT
    0 AS seq,
    raw_segments.*,
    FROM raw_segments
  WHERE raw_segments.next IS NULL
  UNION ALL
  (
    SELECT
      sorted_segments.seq + 1 AS seq,
      raw_segments.*,
      FROM raw_segments
      INNER JOIN sorted_segments ON (raw_segments.next = sorted_segments.id)
  )
)
SELECT *
FROM sorted_segments
ORDER BY seq;

Running the same query from the DuckDB CLI works correctly on 0.7.1, while using 0.7.1 from Node does not (still need to try comparing with exact versions though).

$ cat repro.sql|duckdb
┌───────┬───────┬───────┐
│  seq  │  id   │ next  │
│ int32 │ int32 │ int32 │
├───────┼───────┼───────┤
│     0 │     1 │       │
│     1 │     2 │     1 │
│     2 │     3 │     2 │
└───────┴───────┴───────┘

It also works from Node.JS if I make next always an integer and never null. If I first insert the JSON into a table, then query that it prevents the issue as well.

To Reproduce

I've attached a file with a Node.JS script that reproduces the issue. There's also a SQL script and a folder of test data for comparison.

duckdb-issue.zip

OS:

Arch Linux x86_64

DuckDB Version:

0.7.2-dev2233 / c81600e

DuckDB Client:

Node

Full Name:

Matt Allan

Affiliation:

Destructure LLC (consulting)

Have you tried this on the latest master branch?

• I agree

Have you tried the steps to reproduce? Do they include all relevant data and configuration? Does the issue you report still appear there?

• I agree