cayenne-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nikita Timofeev <>
Subject Re: 4.2 - DISTINCT in column query
Date Thu, 23 Apr 2020 15:39:02 GMT
Hi all,

Just a quick note, ColumnQuery has methods `distinct()` and
`suppressDistinct()` to override the default logic of DISTINCT in
generated SQL.

On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 11:33 AM Andrus Adamchik <> wrote:
> TL;DR: Cayenne using DISTINCT for column queries in 4.2 affects Agrest algorithms, but
is nevertheless correct and should stay around.
> ----
> When testing M1, I noticed a difference in ordering of the second-level results in Agrest
vs 4.0/4.1. Those are generated in Agrest via a SelectQuery with columns roughly looking like
>   List<Property<?>> properties = new ArrayList<>();
>   properties.add(Property.createSelf(E3.class));
>   Expression exp = ExpressionFactory.dbPathExp("");
>   properties.add(Property.create(exp, Integer.class));
>   SelectQuery query = new SelectQuery(E3.class);
>   query.setColumns(properties);
> Here "e2" is a to-one relationship. The difference in generated SQL between 4.0 and 4.2
is the DISTINCT keyword added in the latter:
> 4.0:
>   SELECT, t0.e2_id, t0.id_, t1.id_ FROM utest.e3 t0 JOIN utest.e2 t1 ON (t0.e2_id
= t1.id_)
> 4.2:
>   SELECT DISTINCT, t0.e2_id, t0.id_, t1.id_ FROM utest.e3 t0 JOIN utest.e2 t1
ON t0.e2_id = t1.id_
> Both produce the correct result, but since there's no explicit ordering, the actual order
of the objects returned by Derby is different. I am less worried about the ordering (this
was just an indicator to me that something has changed), but DISTINCT has a performance impact,
and now it seems it will affect the main execution path of Agrest.
> I suppose Cayenne behavior in 4.2 is correct as with column queries there are no simple
rules for when there may be duplicate result rows. Our case doesn't require DISTINCT only
because of the special combination (entity and a related to-one id). And we need to fix this
on Agrest end (that join is redundant in case of to-one).
> Still figured I'd mention...
> Andrus

Best regards,
Nikita Timofeev

View raw message