| 29 | 35 | When those methods are assessed individually, I understand why those fields are the preferred solution (e.g. the meta ordering may not be unique), but given that `distinct` requires the same fields be present at the beginning of the order-by, I don't know what prevents the code to be written to have those fields be resolved in a way that is copacetic. Like, why not convert the reference into 2 additional fields that together, meet both requirements (`name` AND `compound_id`)? Order-by would be satisfied and distinct would be satisfied. Or... in my case, `name` is unique, so distinct could resolve to the meta ordering without issue... |