Your suggestion about iterator is just what I was looking for! values_list() is also good to know about.
Many thanks! On Dec 28 2008, 10:39 pm, "join.toget...@gmail.com" <join.toget...@gmail.com> wrote: > Three things: > > 1:http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/ref/models/querysets/#iterator > > 2: What you're trying to do can be done much more efficiently the > following way: sum(SomeModel.objects.all().values_list('value')) > > 3: django 1.1 will have aggregation support, meaning you won't even > need to do #2 > > On Dec 24, 5:42 pm, garyrob <gary...@mac.com> wrote: > > > I am getting the impression that when I do a django database query > > that iterates through all the rows of the table, django stores every > > model instance in memory. > > > For instance, just doing > > > sumValues = 0 > > for someModel in SomeModel.objects.all(): > > sumValues += someModel.value > > print sumValues > > > can eat up gigabytes of memory if the table is large. > > > But in this example, I don't have any need for the SomeModel instances > > that have already been processed once the value has been retrieved. So > > this is a huge amount of wasted memory. > > > Is there any way to make django not behave this way? I.e., when > > iterating through a query request, I'd like to be able to tell django > > to just retrieve a row at a time from the database, and release the > > memory that was used for previously-retrieved rows. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
