Opened 9 years ago
Closed 2 years ago
#26019 closed Bug (fixed)
Incorrect query generated when combining querysets refering to different fields under the same alias.
Reported by: | Suriya Subramanian | Owned by: | nobody |
---|---|---|---|
Component: | Database layer (models, ORM) | Version: | dev |
Severity: | Normal | Keywords: | |
Cc: | Simon Charette | Triage Stage: | Accepted |
Has patch: | no | Needs documentation: | no |
Needs tests: | no | Patch needs improvement: | no |
Easy pickings: | no | UI/UX: | no |
Description
The Django ORM generates incorrect queries for a QuerySet union that has an annotate. Here's output from a Python shell session illustrating this error.
I am trying to do a union of two QuerySets, one which gets the first_name field (renamed as name_field), and another one which gets the last_name field (also renamed as name_field). The unioned QuerySet gets only the first_name field values.
>>> from django.contrib.auth.models import User >>> from django.db.models import F >>> first_name_qs = User.objects.order_by().annotate(name_field=F('first_name')).values('name_field').distinct() >>> last_name_qs = User.objects.order_by().annotate(name_field=F('last_name')).values('name_field').distinct() >>> print(first_name_qs.query) SELECT DISTINCT "auth_user"."first_name" AS "name_field" FROM "auth_user" >>> print(last_name_qs.query) SELECT DISTINCT "auth_user"."last_name" AS "name_field" FROM "auth_user" >>> print((first_name_qs | last_name_qs).query) SELECT DISTINCT "auth_user"."first_name" AS "name_field" FROM "auth_user"
The above behavior is with Django 1.9.
Change History (10)
follow-up: 3 comment:2 by , 9 years ago
That (or a similar query) is what I am expecting. I have used the |
operator.
comment:3 by , 9 years ago
Replying to mssnlayam:
That (or a similar query) is what I am expecting. I have used the
|
operator.
What I meant here is that the ORM only considers the queries filters and ignore the annotate()
aliases and the fact distinct()
was used.
comment:4 by , 9 years ago
Summary: | Incorrect query generated for QuerySet Union with annotate → Incorrect query generated when combining querysets refering to different fields under the same alias. |
---|---|
Triage Stage: | Unreviewed → Accepted |
Version: | 1.9 → master |
I changed the title to reflect what I think is the actual issue.
If we could use kwargs to specify aliases (#16735) the issue could be expressed by the following query combination:
User.object.values(name='first_name') | User.objects.values(name='last_name')
Still considering this a bug because a TypeError
should be raised in Query._merge_sanity_checks to warn the user about this case.
Once we land this bug fix we should consider reorienting this ticket as a feature request to teach the ORM it should use UNION ALL
in such case.
SELECT "auth_user"."first_name" AS "name" FROM "auth_user" UNION ALL SELECT "auth_user"."last_name" AS "name" FROM "auth_user"
comment:5 by , 9 years ago
If and when we do teach it to use UNION ALL
, and since distinct()
was mentioned in the OP's example, we should probably do something to get distinct queries to use UNION
instead of UNION ALL
.
comment:6 by , 9 years ago
@shaib I agree but I assumed teaching the ORM to use UNION
instead of UNION ALL
if combined queries use distinct could be done in an later patch.
Given
first_names = User.object.values(name='first_name') last_names = User.object.values(name='last_name')
I would expect
first_names.distinct() | last_names.distinct()
To result in
SELECT DISTINCT "auth_user"."first_name" AS "name" FROM "auth_user" UNION ALL SELECT DISTINCT "auth_user"."last_name" AS "name" FROM "auth_user"
And
(first_names | last_names).distinct()
To result in
SELECT "auth_user"."first_name" AS "name" FROM "auth_user" UNION SELECT "auth_user"."last_name" AS "name" FROM "auth_user"
or the equivalent
SELECT DISTINCT "name" FROM ( SELECT "auth_user"."first_name" AS "name" FROM "auth_user" UNION ALL SELECT "auth_user"."last_name" AS "name" FROM "auth_user" )
comment:8 by , 9 years ago
Cc: | added |
---|
comment:9 by , 8 years ago
It seems to me that from this, it _could_ be possible to UNION two ValuesQuerySets from different models, as long as they have the same list of columns.
Yes, I'm aware that ValuesQuerySet went away, but I'm hoping that this may still be possible, at some level ;)
comment:10 by , 2 years ago
Resolution: | → fixed |
---|---|
Status: | new → closed |
Are you expecting the ORM to issue an
UNION
like the following query?I think the ORM only combines the queries filters when the
|
is used.