Skip to main content
  1. About
  2. For Teams
Asked
Viewed 390k times
359

I want to run this query:

SELECT DISTINCT ON (address_id) purchases.address_id, purchases.*
FROM purchases
WHERE purchases.product_id = 1
ORDER BY purchases.purchased_at DESC

But I get this error:

PG::Error: ERROR: SELECT DISTINCT ON expressions must match initial ORDER BY expressions

Adding address_id as first ORDER BY expression silences the error, but I really don't want to add sorting over address_id. Is it possible to do without ordering by address_id?

5
  • Your order clause has purchased_at not address_id.Can you make your question clear.
    Teja
    –  Teja
    2012-03-20 22:01:46 +00:00
    Commented Mar 20, 2012 at 22:01
  • 2
    my order has purchase because i want it, but postgres also asks for address(see error message).
    sl_bug
    –  sl_bug
    2012-03-20 22:03:50 +00:00
    Commented Mar 20, 2012 at 22:03
  • 3
    Fully answered here - stackoverflow.com/questions/9796078/… Thanks to stackoverflow.com/users/268273/mosty-mostacho
    sl_bug
    –  sl_bug
    2012-12-21 23:40:39 +00:00
    Commented Dec 21, 2012 at 23:40
  • 3
    Personally I think requiring DISTINCT ON to match ORDER BY is very questionable, as there are a variety of legitimate use cases for having them differ. There is a post on postgresql.uservoice trying to change this for those who feel similarly. postgresql.uservoice.com/forums/21853-general/suggestions/…
    semicolon
    –  semicolon
    2019-07-16 21:37:42 +00:00
    Commented Jul 16, 2019 at 21:37
  • 1
    got the exact same issue, and facing the same limtation. At the moment I have broken it into a sub-query and then ordering, but it feels dirty.
    Guy Park
    –  Guy Park
    2019-10-24 06:30:40 +00:00
    Commented Oct 24, 2019 at 6:30

7 Answers 7

327

Documentation says:

DISTINCT ON ( expression [, ...] ) keeps only the first row of each set of rows where the given expressions evaluate to equal. [...] Note that the "first row" of each set is unpredictable unless ORDER BY is used to ensure that the desired row appears first. [...] The DISTINCT ON expression(s) must match the leftmost ORDER BY expression(s).

Official documentation

So you'll have to add the address_id to the order by.

Alternatively, if you're looking for the full row that contains the most recent purchased product for each address_id and that result sorted by purchased_at then you're trying to solve a greatest N per group problem which can be solved by the following approaches:

The general solution that should work in most DBMSs:

SELECT t1.* FROM purchases t1
JOIN (
    SELECT address_id, max(purchased_at) max_purchased_at
    FROM purchases
    WHERE product_id = 1
    GROUP BY address_id
) t2
ON t1.address_id = t2.address_id AND t1.purchased_at = t2.max_purchased_at
ORDER BY t1.purchased_at DESC

A more PostgreSQL-oriented solution based on @hkf's answer:

SELECT * FROM (
  SELECT DISTINCT ON (address_id) *
  FROM purchases 
  WHERE product_id = 1
  ORDER BY address_id, purchased_at DESC
) t
ORDER BY purchased_at DESC

Problem clarified, extended and solved here: Selecting rows ordered by some column and distinct on another

Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

12 Comments

It works, but gives wrong ordering. That's why i want to get rid of address_id in order clause
But may be there is another way to select latest purchases for disticnt addresses?
If you need to order by purchases.purchased_at, you can add purchased_at to your DISTINCT conditions: SELECT DISTINCT ON (purchases.purchased_at, address_id). However, two records with the same address_id but different purchased_at values will result in duplicates in the returned set. Make sure you are cognizant of the data you're querying.
The spirit of the question is clear. No need to pick on semantics. It's sad that the accepted and most voted answer doesn't help you solve the problem.
Here is a postgresql.uservoice post trying to lift this limitation for those that agree it is a questionable limitation. postgresql.uservoice.com/forums/21853-general/suggestions/…
|
103

A subquery can solve it:

SELECT *
FROM  (
    SELECT DISTINCT ON (address_id) *
    FROM   purchases
    WHERE  product_id = 1
    ) p
ORDER  BY purchased_at DESC;

Leading expressions in ORDER BY have to agree with columns in DISTINCT ON, so you can't order by different columns in the same SELECT.

Only use an additional ORDER BY in the subquery if you want to pick a particular row from each set:

SELECT *
FROM  (
    SELECT DISTINCT ON (address_id) *
    FROM   purchases
    WHERE  product_id = 1
    ORDER  BY address_id, purchased_at DESC  -- get "latest" row per address_id
    ) p
ORDER  BY purchased_at DESC;

If purchased_at can be NULL, use DESC NULLS LAST - and match your index for best performance. See:

Related, with more explanation:

5 Comments

You cannot use DISTINCT ON without a matching ORDER BY. The first query requires an ORDER BY address_id inside the subquery.
@AristotlePagaltzis: But you can. Wherever you got that from, it's incorrect. You can use DISTINCT ON without ORDER BY in the same query. You get an arbitrary row from each set of peers defined by the DISTINCT ON clause in this case. Try it or follow the links above for details and links to the manual. ORDER BY in the same query (the same SELECT) just cannot disagree with DISTINCT ON. I did explain that, too.
Huh, you’re right. I was blind to the implication of the “unpredictable unless ORDER BY is used” note in the docs because it does not make sense to me that the feature is implemented to be able deal with non-consecutive sets of values… yet won’t allow you to exploit that with an explicit ordering. Annoying.
@AristotlePagaltzis: That's because, internally, Postgres uses one of (at least) two distinct algorithms: either traverse a sorted list or work with hash values - whichever promises to be faster. In the later case the result is not sorted by DISTINCT ON expressions (yet).
Thanks a lot! Your second query solved my issue and returns results in expected order!
74

You can order by address_id in an subquery, then order by what you want in an outer query.

SELECT * FROM 
    (SELECT DISTINCT ON (address_id) purchases.address_id, purchases.* 
    FROM "purchases" 
    WHERE "purchases"."product_id" = 1 ORDER BY address_id DESC ) 
ORDER BY purchased_at DESC

6 Comments

But this will be slower than just one query, no?
Very marginally yes. Although since you have a purchases.* in your original select, I don't think this is production code?
I'd add that for newer versions of postgres you need to alias the subquery. For example: SELECT * FROM (SELECT DISTINCT ON (address_id) purchases.address_id, purchases.* FROM "purchases" WHERE "purchases"."product_id" = 1 ORDER BY address_id DESC ) AS tmp ORDER BY tmp.purchased_at DESC
This would return address_id twice (without need). Many clients have problems with duplicate column names. ORDER BY address_id DESC is pointless and misleading. It does nothing useful in this query. The result is an arbitrary pick from each set of rows with the same address_id, not the row with the latest purchased_at. The ambiguous question did not ask for that explicitly, but that's almost certainly the OP's intention. In short: do not use this query. I posted alternatives with explanation.
this does not sort it by purchased_at in a subquery at all, it will return just randomly ordered rows of distinct addres_ids
|
12

Window function may solve that in one pass:

SELECT DISTINCT ON (address_id) 
   LAST_VALUE(purchases.address_id) OVER wnd AS address_id
FROM "purchases"
WHERE "purchases"."product_id" = 1
WINDOW wnd AS (
   PARTITION BY address_id ORDER BY purchases.purchased_at DESC
   ROWS BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING)

2 Comments

It would be nice if someone explained the query.
@Gajus: Short explanation: it doesn't work, only returns distinct address_id. The principle could work, though. Related examples: stackoverflow.com/a/22064571/939860 or stackoverflow.com/a/11533808/939860. But there are shorter and / or faster queries for the problem at hand.
9

For anyone using Flask-SQLAlchemy, this worked for me

from app import db
from app.models import Purchases
from sqlalchemy.orm import aliased
from sqlalchemy import desc

stmt = Purchases.query.distinct(Purchases.address_id).subquery('purchases')
alias = aliased(Purchases, stmt)
distinct = db.session.query(alias)
distinct.order_by(desc(alias.purchased_at))

5 Comments

Yes, or even easier, I was able to use: query.distinct(foo).from_self().order(bar)
@LaurentMeyer do you mean Purchases.query?
Yes, I meant Purchases.query
That's weird, is from_self something undocumented? I cannot get it to work – Query and QuerySet raise AttributeError when I try to access it
Oh, wait, it's SQLAlchemy, not Django, silly me
0

It can also be solved using the following query along with other answers.

WITH purchase_data AS (
        SELECT address_id, purchased_at, product_id,
                row_number() OVER (PARTITION BY address_id ORDER BY purchased_at DESC) AS row_number
        FROM purchases
        WHERE product_id = 1)
SELECT address_id, purchased_at, product_id
FROM purchase_data where row_number = 1

Comments

-3

You can also done this by using group by clause

   SELECT purchases.address_id, purchases.* FROM "purchases"
    WHERE "purchases"."product_id" = 1 GROUP BY address_id,
purchases.purchased_at ORDER purchases.purchased_at DESC

1 Comment

This is incorrect (unless purchases has only the two columns address_id and purchased_at). Because of GROUP BY, you will need to use an aggregate function to get the value of each column not used for grouping, so they values will all be coming from different rows of the group unless you go through ugly and inefficient gymnastics. This can be fixed only by using window functions rather than GROUP BY.

Your Answer

Post as a guest

Required, but never shown

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.

Morty Proxy This is a proxified and sanitized view of the page, visit original site.