-
Couldn't load subscription status.
- Fork 108
Fix bug with orderBy on duplicate values #713
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
…nce the collection will notice they were already in the collection
🦋 Changeset detectedLatest commit: ed77bbf The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump. This PR includes changesets to release 12 packages
Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are. Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR |
More templates
@tanstack/angular-db
@tanstack/db
@tanstack/db-ivm
@tanstack/electric-db-collection
@tanstack/query-db-collection
@tanstack/react-db
@tanstack/rxdb-db-collection
@tanstack/solid-db
@tanstack/svelte-db
@tanstack/trailbase-db-collection
@tanstack/vue-db
commit: |
|
Size Change: +326 B (+0.39%) Total Size: 84.6 kB
ℹ️ View Unchanged
|
|
Size Change: 0 B Total Size: 2.89 kB ℹ️ View Unchanged
|
There was a bug in
orderBythat could cause duplicate values to be skipped. For example, if we had this data:1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5. And we would request LIMIT 3 then we would load1, 2, 3and remember that the max value we've loaded is3. Then on the next load request we would ask fordata > 3which would skip over the duplicate values3and immediately return4, 5thereby missing the two other occurences of the value3.This PR modifies
requestLimitedSnapshotsuch that it loads 2 subsets: all the occurences ofmaxValueand all data> maxValue. We can't do it in 1 query which is>= maxValue LIMIT Nbecause the duplicate values would count towards the limit but we may already have loaded some of them. e.g.>= 3 LIMIT 3would give3, 3, 3but we had already seen the first occurence of3, so that's wrong because we actually expect to get3, 3, 4(the next two occurences of 3 and the value4).TODO:
truefromsetWindowinstead of returning the promise of the underlying collection. Need to fix this in a follow up PR and then we can update the unit tests here to useawaitinstead ofsleep().