[1.9.x] Refs #25136 -- Fixed nonexistent field reference in aggregation topic guide.

Thanks Ankush Thakur for the report and Simon for the review.

Backport of fe70f280d7ea4402f676696c4013c4a23d4e4990 from master

1 files changed, 7 insertions, 6 deletions

diff --git a/docs/topics/db/aggregation.txt b/docs/topics/db/aggregation.txt
index c5dddf29c6..ddae76a442 100644
--- a/docs/topics/db/aggregation.txt
+++ b/docs/topics/db/aggregation.txt
@@ -193,24 +193,25 @@ Combining multiple aggregations with ``annotate()`` will `yield the wrong
 results <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/10060>`_ because joins are used
 instead of subqueries:
 
-    >>> Book.objects.first().authors.count()
+    >>> book = Book.objects.first()
+    >>> book.authors.count()
     2
-    >>> Book.objects.first().chapters.count()
+    >>> book.store_set.count()
     3
-    >>> q = Book.objects.annotate(Count('authors'), Count('chapters'))
+    >>> q = Book.objects.annotate(Count('authors'), Count('store'))
     >>> q[0].authors__count
     6
-    >>> q[0].chapters__count
+    >>> q[0].store__count
     6
 
 For most aggregates, there is no way to avoid this problem, however, the
 :class:`~django.db.models.Count` aggregate has a ``distinct`` parameter that
 may help:
 
-    >>> q = Book.objects.annotate(Count('authors', distinct=True), Count('chapters', distinct=True))
+    >>> q = Book.objects.annotate(Count('authors', distinct=True), Count('store', distinct=True))
     >>> q[0].authors__count
     2
-    >>> q[0].chapters__count
+    >>> q[0].store__count
     3
 
 .. admonition:: If in doubt, inspect the SQL query!