On Mon, 2008-03-24 at 11:38 -0700, shabda wrote:
> Ah, but practicality beats purity :)
>
> But of course I have not fully profiled, the times so might be not
> select_related as default is a good idea.
I think you're also equating your particular use-cases with being the
most common and
Ah, but practicality beats purity :)
But of course I have not fully profiled, the times so might be not
select_related as default is a good idea.
On Mar 24, 5:40 pm, "Tom Badran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 11:03 AM, shabda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In most of my
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 11:03 AM, shabda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In most of my pages, select_related dramatically reduces the number of
> queries the page is needing, so I was wondering what is the reason
> behind not making select_related default and providing a method for
>
In most of my pages, select_related dramatically reduces the number of
queries the page is needing, so I was wondering what is the reason
behind not making select_related default and providing a method for
do_not_select_related
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received
4 matches
Mail list logo
