JModelLegacy: Don't try to use "fast" count method for queries with union #5108
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Makes sense. Good catch. |
|
Makes sense! 👍 |
|
Set ton RTC |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
To calculate the total number of items that a query returns, we try to use a faster method by replacing the whole SELECT part with a COUNT(). When we are using a UNION or UNIONALL in our query, this however fails, since the number of fields of the 2 different queries when using COUNT() might differ. This PR excludes such queries from being treated in that special way.
Again, not easily testable, needs a maintainer to do a code review.
I will provide another PR soon, that merges the update and discover view of com_installer and which uses this feature.