On Apr 13, 2007, at 4:17 PM, Ants Aasma wrote:
>> really, the work to do here is 5% the patch to the in_() method, and
>> 95% making me a really nice unit test suite that will generatively
>> test IN for every contingencyincluding the bind param stuff in
>> #476 (but simpler code than whats
On Apr 13, 2007, at 3:43 PM, vkuznet wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I added to my query the limit and offset (using ORACLE). To my
> surprise results ARE varying if I'll print my select or not before
> executing query. What I mean is the following
>
> sel = select ()
> #print sel
> sel.execute()
>
> so, i
#476 - forget the visitor stuff; i use the simpler code that is in the
text of "02/15/07 09:59:22 changed by svil" comment, for some 2
months now, and all is ok.
i've added the patch/code to that ticket as well as to #474/475.
On Friday 13 April 2007 23:17:37 Ants Aasma wrote:
> On Apr 13, 10:
On Apr 13, 10:16 pm, Michael Bayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, first thing i wasnt sure about, is CASE supported on every DB
> that we support. I took a look at our CASE unit test and it appears
> it applies to all DBs...(although i cant verify it passes on
> firebird).
Works on Firebird 1.
> we arent writing to anything here, this is strictly a read-only
> function. if you want to modify the collection, you create a real
> relation() separately. the controversy was over should the
> relation () and the generative loader be mixed (which I think they
> should not, even though its sl
Hi,
I added to my query the limit and offset (using ORACLE). To my
surprise results ARE varying if I'll print my select or not before
executing query. What I mean is the following
sel = select ()
#print sel
sel.execute()
so, if I will not print my select, I'll get *smaller* number of
results
On Apr 13, 2007, at 3:10 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> then:
>>
>> m = session.query(MyClass).get(1)
>> somechildren = m.children[3:5]
>> someotherchildren = m.children.filter_by(foo='bar').filter_by
>> (x==y).list()
>>
> hm, that seems like a way... more or less what i've done so far, on a
On Apr 13, 2007, at 2:37 PM, Ants Aasma wrote:
>
> On Apr 13, 6:40 pm, "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Sorry, it looks like is already being discussed. (Serve me right for
>> reading in threaded mode.) From my SA-newbie POV, I'd love it if
>> col.in_() compiled down to false or 0 (whateve
On Friday 13 April 2007 21:20:18 Michael Bayer wrote:
> On Apr 13, 2007, at 12:51 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > haven't thought yet of where/how to hack this...
> > i may have to abandon *-to-many-relations() alltogether, as i
> > don't want/need them loaded - only filtered at view-time.
> > or
On Apr 13, 6:40 pm, "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry, it looks like is already being discussed. (Serve me right for
> reading in threaded mode.) From my SA-newbie POV, I'd love it if
> col.in_() compiled down to false or 0 (whatever works).
col.in_() is easy to get working correctly, t
Figured it out on my own :-)
You need the following for a mapper:
...
properties = { ...
'forks':relation(Fork,
secondary=UtensileTable,
primaryjoin=PlaceSetting.c.id==UtensileTable.c.placeSettingID,
secondaryjoin=UtensileTable.c.id==ForkTable.c.id,
you know i was going to say "hey we should add a distinct() function"
but then i checked and its already there:
select([func.count(table.c.column.distinct())]).execute()
this method is actually on _CompareMixin and I should look into
getting it into the generated docs somehow. also i think
On Apr 13, 2007, at 12:51 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> haven't thought yet of where/how to hack this...
> i may have to abandon *-to-many-relations() alltogether, as i don't
> want/need them loaded - only filtered at view-time.
> or can i make some super- (or sub-) relation thing (propertyLoade
Hi,
I found that if I do
select([func.count(table.c.column)],distinct=True).execute()
the resulting query is
select distinct count(column) from table
but it's not what I wanted. If my column has duplicates you got
counting them, rather then count unique names. The proper SQL query
would be
sele
On Apr 13, 2007, at 11:40 AM, Rick wrote:
>
> Sorry, it looks like is already being discussed. (Serve me right for
> reading in threaded mode.) From my SA-newbie POV, I'd love it if
> col.in_() compiled down to false or 0 (whatever works).
sure...but I was just saying, i get much more antsy i
i have some heretical thought about this...
my context is: i have a many2many relation, which is always used as a
one to many for one particular item; i.e. an additionaly filtered
many2many by a runtime argument. e.g. imagine those users <->
addresses, but always used as "addresses for a parti
On Apr 13, 2007, at 10:49 AM, Arun Kumar PG wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I have a web application where I have multiple DAOs that may be
> called during phases within a request. Since I want to make sure
> that I get the same session with every DAO I was wondering if I can
> add a runtime session
I am trying to do something like this:
PlaceSettingTable = Table("place_setting", metadata,
Column('id', Integer, primary_key=True)
)
UtensileTable = Table("utensile", metadata,
Column('id', Integer, primary_key=True),
On Apr 12, 2007, at 11:38 PM, Kaali wrote:
>
> I actually tried to use query.instances, but it behaved quite oddly. I
> didn't debug or even echo the SQL calls yet, but it made accessing
> those instances very slow. The actual instances call was quick, but
> when accessing the objects from the r
Disrupt07 wrote
>
> @Simon
> Thanks. But what is ? Is it SQLAlchemy or pure SQL?
>
It is a Query object, as described here:
http://www.sqlalchemy.org/docs/datamapping.html
If you haven't read them yet, I'd recommend working through a tutorial -
I found this one really helpful:
http://ww
@Simon
Thanks. But what is ? Is it SQLAlchemy or pure SQL?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sqlalchemy" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group,
Sorry, it looks like is already being discussed. (Serve me right for
reading in threaded mode.) From my SA-newbie POV, I'd love it if
col.in_() compiled down to false or 0 (whatever works).
On Apr 13, 11:35 am, "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wouldn't the semantics of IN seem to imply that
Wouldn't the semantics of IN seem to imply that the expression "foo IN
", should always evaluate to false? Clearly, "foo" is not
in the empty set. I can't think of a use case where I'd use IN and
want the expression "anything IN " to evaluate to True.
I'm another user who would use column.in_(),
Disrupt07 wrote:
>
> I have a table storing users' info.
> table: userinfo
> columns: name, surname, age, location, ...
>
> I need to query this table using SQLAlchemy's ORM methods (e.g.
> select(), select_by(), get_by()). The query should be like
>SELECT * FROM userinfo WHERE name LIKE 'B
I have a table storing users' info.
table: userinfo
columns: name, surname, age, location, ...
I need to query this table using SQLAlchemy's ORM methods (e.g.
select(), select_by(), get_by()). The query should be like
SELECT * FROM userinfo WHERE name LIKE 'Ben%' ORDER BY name, age
Which SQL
On Apr 13, 1:47 pm, "Koen Bok" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> request_table = Table('request', metadata,
> Column('id', Integer, primary_key=True),
> Column('number', Integer, unique=True, nullable=True,
> default=text('(SELECT coalesce(max(number), 0) + 1 FROM
> req
Hi All,
I have a web application where I have multiple DAOs that may be called
during phases within a request. Since I want to make sure that I get the
same session with every DAO I was wondering if I can add a runtime session
attribute to the current thread returned Python's threading.currentThre
cool thx.
On 4/13/07, svilen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I have a Parent - Child (1:N) relationship between Class and Exam
> > table.
> >
> > Class -> Exam
> > 1 :N
> >
> > Now since a "Class" could have millions of "Exam" I don't want have
> > an attribute on Class called exa
> I have a Parent - Child (1:N) relationship between Class and Exam
> table.
>
> Class -> Exam
> 1 :N
>
> Now since a "Class" could have millions of "Exam" I don't want have
> an attribute on Class called exams. Instead I only want an
> attribute on "Exam" to the parent "Class".
>
> C
Hi Guys,
I have a Parent - Child (1:N) relationship between Class and Exam table.
Class -> Exam
1 :N
Now since a "Class" could have millions of "Exam" I don't want have an
attribute on Class called exams. Instead I only want an attribute on "Exam"
to the parent "Class".
Can we do th
request_table = Table('request', metadata,
Column('id', Integer, primary_key=True),
Column('number', Integer, unique=True, nullable=True,
default=text('(SELECT coalesce(max(number), 0) + 1 FROM
request)')))
This seems to work well. But is this a good way to do th
On Apr 13, 12:23 pm, "Koen Bok" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, I'd rather handle it on the database level. Is that just a matter
> of creating a function and calling it on insert?
You need a sequence that has locks and rolls back on rollback.
Simplest way is to use a table: CREATE TABLE sequenc
Michael Bayer wrote:
> please file a ticket for this.
done, #535
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sqlalchemy" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this
Ok, I'd rather handle it on the database level. Is that just a matter
of creating a function and calling it on insert?
Koen
On Apr 13, 4:47 am, "Ants Aasma" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 13, 2:47 am, Jorge Godoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > IF you insist on doing that at your code, mak
34 matches
Mail list logo
