One last note: M2M could also benefit from this, and could continue to look for `filter_horizontal` and not use a raw IDs field in those cases.
On Wednesday, October 17, 2018 at 11:59:43 AM UTC-4, Yo-Yo Ma wrote: > > I have yet to ever come across a situation where the default <select> > field is more useful than the raw ID field, pertaining foreign key fields > in the admin. > > I have, however, personally witnessed a major publishing company bring > their production app servers to a halt (out of memory) due to Django > attempting to generate 2.5 million <option value="..."> tags for some dozen > admins that were all refreshing an admin changeview, wondering why it was > taking so long to load. > > Another thing worth noting is that when the <select> is most useful (when > there are very few records to select) also happens to be when the raw ID > field is most easily used (since the selection changelist only contains the > same very few records). IOW, the raw ID field's usefulness is universal, > working well with just a few records, and also working well (due to search > / sort) when there are many records. > > Nary a transition would be required, since the `raw_id_fields` could > simply be ignored. > > A new `select_fields = []` could be added for those who wish to easily > use the old functionality. > > Is there any reason why this couldn't or shouldn't be done? > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/e0262150-ec7e-487d-8fb1-b64f8df2e7a3%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
