Query results grouping is Specify 6 vs Specify 7

Hello, one of our collection managers has brought an interesting wrinkle in differing result sets when querying via Specify 6 vs. Specify 7. The difference seems to be with grouping and fields that are marked as “Show” or not in the query filters and if those fields represent a One to Many relationship.

Our IZ collection has a big ole saved query that they have used for their workflows in Specify 6. The query begins with Collection Object as the base table, includes various relationships, all One to Many relationships are aggregated, except for two fields that are not marked as “Show”, loan invoice number and preptype. In Specify 6, they can filter on these and get results that are not a Cartesian product, i. e. - makes multiple rows for single collection objects. If those fields are “Shown” in the query, the multiple rows appear as expected, but if they remain as not “Shown” they can filter on them without the duplication.

In Specify 7, it seems that regardless of “Shown” status for fields included in a query, the Cartesian product happens either way. I have advised them to use the “Distinct” operator to eliminate the duplication, but then they can’t link out to the individual records to work with them.

This is not a show-stopper or anything, just thought I’d see if there is a way to get Specify 6 behavior in Specify 7.

Thanks, all,


Hi @twilson,

Thank you for contacting us! I’m pleased to inform you that we have resolved the discrepancy between Specify 6 and 7 in this instance.

Turning off ‘Show’ in Specify 6 makes the query builder field switch from a regular true/false question to a ‘finding if something exists’ question. When you add ‘not’ to it, it checks if something doesn’t exist rather than if it does.

In an upcoming Specify 7 update this Spring (v7.9.4), we are introducing a feature that condenses records from distinct queries into a single line. This mirrors Specify 6’s behavior but now includes the ability for users to navigate between these condensed records.

See below:

This feature is already on its way! Feel free to ask if you have any questions. :smile:

1 Like