Skip to content

Duplicate column names created by base::merge() when by.x has the same name as a column in y

12 messages · Duncan Murdoch, Scott Ritchie, Gabriel Becker +1 more

#
Hi,

I was unable to find a bug report for this with a cursory search, but would
like clarification if this is intended or unavoidable behaviour:

```{r}
# Create example data.frames
parents <- data.frame(name=c("Sarah", "Max", "Qin", "Lex"),
                      sex=c("F", "M", "F", "M"),
                      age=c(41, 43, 36, 51))
children <- data.frame(parent=c("Sarah", "Max", "Qin"),
                       name=c("Oliver", "Sebastian", "Kai-lee"),
                       sex=c("M", "M", "F"),
                       age=c(5,8,7))

# Merge() creates a duplicated "name" column:
merge(parents, children, by.x = "name", by.y = "parent")
```

Output:
```
   name sex.x age.x      name sex.y age.y
1   Max     M    43 Sebastian     M     8
2   Qin     F    36   Kai-lee     F     7
3 Sarah     F    41    Oliver     M     5
Warning message:
In merge.data.frame(parents, children, by.x = "name", by.y = "parent") :
  column name ?name? is duplicated in the result
```

Kind Regards,

Scott Ritchie
#
Hi Scott,

It seems like reasonable behavior to me. What result would you expect?
That the second "name" should be called "name.y"?

The "merge" documentation says:

    If the columns in the data frames not used in merging have any
    common names, these have ?suffixes? (?".x"? and ?".y"? by default)
    appended to try to make the names of the result unique.

Since the first "name" column was used in merging, leaving both
without a suffix seems consistent with the documentation...

Frederick
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 09:08:29AM +1100, Scott Ritchie wrote:
#
Hi Frederick,

I would expect that any duplicate names in the resulting data.frame would
have the suffixes appended to them, regardless of whether or not they are
used as the join key. So in my example I would expect "names.x" and
"names.y" to indicate their source data.frame.

While careful reading of the documentation reveals this is not the case, I
would argue the intent of the suffixes functionality should equally be
applied to this type of case.

If you agree this would be useful, I'm happy to write a patch for
merge.data.frame that will add suffixes in this case - I intend to do the
same for merge.data.table in the data.table package where I initially
encountered the edge case.

Best,

Scott
On 17 February 2018 at 03:53, <frederik at ofb.net> wrote:

            

  
  
#
The attached patch.diff will make merge.data.frame() append the suffixes to
columns with common names between by.x and names(y).

Best,

Scott Ritchie
On 17 February 2018 at 11:15, Scott Ritchie <s.ritchie73 at gmail.com> wrote:

            
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: patch.diff
URL: <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/attachments/20180217/efabe387/attachment.ksh>
#
Hi Scott,

Thanks for the patch. I'm not really involved in R development; it
will be up to someone in the R core team to apply it. I would hazard
to say that even if correct (I haven't checked), it will not be
applied because the change might break existing code. For example it
seems like reasonable code might easily assume that a column with the
same name as "by.x" exists in the output of 'merge'. That's just my
best guess... I don't participate on here often.

Cheers,

Frederick
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 04:42:21PM +1100, Scott Ritchie wrote:
#
On 17/02/2018 6:36 PM, frederik at ofb.net wrote:
I think you're right.  If I were still a member of R Core, I would want 
to test this against all packages on CRAN and Bioconductor, and since 
that test takes a couple of days to run on my laptop, I'd probably never 
get around to it.

There are lots of cases where "I would have done that differently", but 
most of them are far too much trouble to change now that R is more than 
20 years old.  And in many cases it will turn out that the way R does it 
actually does make more sense than the way I would have done it.

Duncan Murdoch
#
Thanks Duncan and Frederick,

I suspected as much - there doesn't appear to be any reason why conflicts
between by.x and names(y) shouldn't and cannot be checked, but I can see
how this might be more trouble than its worth given it potentially may
break downstream packages (i.e. any cases where this occurs but they expect
the name of the key column(s) to remain the same).

Best,

Scott

On 18 February 2018 at 11:48, Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com>
wrote:

  
  
#
It seems like there is a way that is backwards compatible-ish in the sense
mentioned and still has the (arguably, but a good argument I think) better
behavior:

if by.x is 'name', (AND by.y is not also 'name'), then x's 'name' column is
called name and y's 'name' column (not used int he merge) is changed to
name.y.

Now of course this would still change output, but it would change it to
something I think would be better, while retaining the 'merge columns
retain their exact names' mechanic as documented.

~G

On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 6:50 PM, Scott Ritchie <s.ritchie73 at gmail.com>
wrote:

  
    
#
Thanks Gabriel,

I think your suggested approach is 100% backwards compatible

Currently in the case of duplicate column names only the first can be
indexed by its name. This will always be the column appearing in by.x,
meaning the column in y with the same name cannot be accessed. Appending
".y" (suffixes[2L]) to this column means it can now be accessed, while
keeping the current behaviour of making the key columns always accessible
by using the names provided to by.x.

I've attached a new patch that has this behaviour.

Best,

Scott
On 19 February 2018 at 05:08, Gabriel Becker <gmbecker at ucdavis.edu> wrote:

            
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: patch.diff
URL: <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/attachments/20180219/6c467cb5/attachment.ksh>
2 days later
#
Hi Scott,

I think that's a good idea and I tried your patch on my copy of the
repository. But it looks to me like the recent patch is identical to
the previous one, can you confirm this?

Frederick
On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 07:19:32AM +1100, Scott Ritchie wrote:

        
#
Hi Frederick,

It looks like I didn't overwrite the patch.diff file after the last edits.
Here's the correct patch (attached and copied below):

Index: src/library/base/R/merge.R
===================================================================
--- src/library/base/R/merge.R (revision 74280)
+++ src/library/base/R/merge.R (working copy)
@@ -157,6 +157,14 @@
         }

         if(has.common.nms) names(y) <- nm.y
+        ## If by.x %in% names(y) then duplicate column names still arise,
+        ## apply suffixes to just y - this keeps backwards compatibility
+        ## when referring to by.x in the resulting data.frame
+        dupe.keyx <- intersect(nm.by, names(y))
+        if(length(dupe.keyx)) {
+          if(nzchar(suffixes[2L]))
+            names(y)[match(dupe.keyx, names(y), 0L)] <- paste(dupe.keyx,
suffixes[2L], sep="")
+        }
         nm <- c(names(x), names(y))
         if(any(d <- duplicated(nm)))
             if(sum(d) > 1L)

Best,

Scott
On 21 February 2018 at 08:23, <frederik at ofb.net> wrote:

            
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: patch.diff
URL: <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/attachments/20180221/7e77cbd6/attachment.ksh>
#
Hi Scott,

I tried the new patch and can confirm that it has the advertised
behavior on a couple of test cases. I think it makes sense to apply
it, because any existing code which refers to a second duplicate
data.frame column by name is already broken, while if the reference is
by numerical index then changing the column name shouldn't break it.

I don't know if you need to update the documentation as part of your
patch, or if whoever applies it would be happy to do that. Somebody
from R core want to weigh in on this?

I attach a file with the test example from your original email as well
as a second test case I added with two "by" columns.

Thanks,

Frederick
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:06:21AM +1100, Scott Ritchie wrote:
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: ritchie-testcase
URL: <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/attachments/20180220/b5b74207/attachment.ksh>