Base duplicate index on column names #4600
Conversation
|
Duplicate of #4353. |
|
@rauchy , thanks for the PR! We've updated a lot of things now that we're Community-driven so - if you're still interested in getting this merged - would you mind rebasing off master to re-run the CI, as well as updating merge conflicts? We're trying to clean up our PR todo list, so if you're not interested, that's fine - we'll close the PR in about a week if we don't hear back. If you're interested in reopening the PR afterwards, we would also very much welcome that. |
|
Attempted a manual merge just now using the web interface. No idea if it'll work, and it'll probably fail the format check. But, lets see what happens... 😄 |
|
Just fixed the formatting with This PR still needs to be reviewed though. 😄 |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #4600 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 60.74% 60.77% +0.02%
==========================================
Files 154 154
Lines 12628 12629 +1
Branches 1716 1716
==========================================
+ Hits 7671 7675 +4
+ Misses 4732 4730 -2
+ Partials 225 224 -1
|
|
I think we should merge this one instead of #4353 , since this one fully encompasses the other PR. I also think we might want a test here before merging |
|
Good thinking @guidopetri, yep we'll want some kind of test. 😄 |
… not the number of duplicates detected
guidopetri
force-pushed
the
column-name-based-duplicates
branch
from
3a422c4
to
986deb9
Compare
What type of PR is this? (check all applicable)
Description
I've noticed that duplicate column names are indexed according to the amount of duplicates, and not based off the actual column name duplicates. For example: if you join the users table with the organizations table you would see
name, created_at, updated_at, name1, created_at2, updated_at3where I would expectname, created_at, updated_at, name1, created_at1, updated_at1.Not sure if this is intentional, and also it will probably break existing queries, so feel free to reject this :)