ActiveRecord Cannot Read Minds

Engineering Insights

#
Min Read
Published On
March 13, 2025
Updated On
March 14, 2025
ActiveRecord Cannot Read Minds

ActiveRecord Cannot Read Minds

TL;DR

  • ActiveRecord has tons of nice, declarative abstractions on top of SQL
  • It can be dangerous to assume what those abstractions produce

Automatic Association Recognition in Where Clauses

ActiveRecord is great at noticing what is meant when trying to filter a query by a record. If
we have the following two models:

class User < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :pets
end

class Pet < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :user
end

We can do:

user = User.first
pets = Pet.where(user_id: user.id)

which generates the SQL:

pets.to_sql
# => SELECT "pets".* FROM "pets" WHERE "pets"."user_id" = 1

because user_id is a column of the pets table. But, for cleanliness, we can simplify this to:

user = User.first
pets = Pet.where(user: user)

This correctly generates the same SQL! And, it even works for has_many associations!

pets = Pet.all
pets = User.where(pets: pets)

Which generates SQL like:

pets.to_sql
# => SELECT "users".* FROM "users" WHERE "users"."id" IN (SELECT "pets"."user_id" FROM "pets")

That's great! ActiveRecord took the words describing what we wanted and converted it to SQL for us! But does this always work the way we expect? Let's consider this setup of users
that have animals with names:

User.create(first_name: "Hank").tap do |hank|
  hank.pets.create(breed: "cat", name: "Nala")
  hank.pets.create(breed: "dog", name: "Max")
end

User.create(first_name: "Bob").tap do |bob|
  bob.pets.create(breed: "dog", name: "Nala")
  bob.pets.create(breed: "cat", name: "Felix")
end

Let's say we want to know which users own pets named "Nala" and what breed those "Nala"s are:

nalas = Pet.where(name: "Nala")
User
  .joins(:pets)
  .where(pets: nalas)
  .pluck("users.first_name", "pets.breed")

And one might expect the output to look like:

[["Hank", "cat"], ["Bob", "dog"]]

But instead what we get is:

[["Hank", "dog"], ["Hank", "cat"], ["Bob", "cat"], ["Bob", "dog"]]

What happened? Well, one issue with trying to convert words into SQL is that there are different ways to interpret words. What ActiveRecord got was:

  1. Get users that have at least one pet whose name is "Nala" (Hank and Bob)
  2. Join them to pets to get all pets for both users
  3. Print the name of each person and the breed of each pet that person has

Which is a perfectly valid interpretation and it's very easy to write tests without sufficient
setup data to catch this (trust me; I've done it!). Instead we could write ActiveRecord like:

nalas = Pet.where(name: "Nala")
User
  .joins(:pets)
  .where(pets: { id: nalas })  .pluck("users.first_name", "pets.breed")

or:

nalas = Pet.where(name: "Nala")
User
  .joins(:pets)
  .merge(nalas)  .pluck("users.first_name", "pets.breed")

Summary

It's important to review the SQL generated by ActiveRecord clauses carefully along with
the words describing the desired data.

Learn more about how The Gnar builds Ruby on Rails applications.

Author headshot
Written by
, The Gnar Company

Related Insights

See All Articles
Product Insights
How Much Does Custom Software Development Cost? (The Real Answer)

How Much Does Custom Software Development Cost? (The Real Answer)

Most software projects go over budget because they're priced before the problem is understood. Learn how structured discovery gives you a guaranteed build price before development starts.
Product Insights
How to Choose the Best Software Development Agency in Boston (2026)

How to Choose the Best Software Development Agency in Boston (2026)

A Boston agency founder's guide to evaluating software development companies. Learn the four agency types, red flags to avoid, and questions to ask in 2026.
Engineering Insights
10 Ways to Get Better Results From Claude Code

10 Ways to Get Better Results From Claude Code

A recent Hacker News thread turned into a goldmine of practical advice from developers using Claude Code daily. After reading through hundreds of comments, a clear pattern emerged: the developers getting the best results aren't writing better prompts — they're building better workflows around the tool.
Previous
Next
See All Articles