-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Luke,
Thanks for the thorough reply! I'm convinced that it wouldn't make sense
to merge select_related and prefetch_related; I wish I had a better
suggestion for a name for prefetch_related, but I don't. Consider my
concern withdrawn.
Carl
-BE
Hi Carl,
Thanks for the feedback, sorry for the length of my reply, I tried to be
detailed to avoid you having to read the code.
On 03/10/11 20:44, Carl Meyer wrote:
> My only real concern is one I'm a bit surprised hasn't been raised
> already: API and naming sanity. If I'm a new user coming to
On Oct 3, 10:44 pm, Carl Meyer wrote:
> Hi Luke,
>
> On Oct 3, 9:04 am, Luke Plant wrote:
>
> > The patch for this is now ready, as far as I'm concerned, but I'd like
> > to bring it up here again before committing, mainly because Alex Gaynor
> > expressed some doubts.
>
> > The latest patch is o
On Oct 3, 6:04 pm, Luke Plant wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The patch for this is now ready, as far as I'm concerned, but I'd like
> to bring it up here again before committing, mainly because Alex Gaynor
> expressed some doubts.
I have done a review of the patch, and I think it is commit ready.
There has
Hi Luke,
On Oct 3, 9:04 am, Luke Plant wrote:
> The patch for this is now ready, as far as I'm concerned, but I'd like
> to bring it up here again before committing, mainly because Alex Gaynor
> expressed some doubts.
>
> The latest patch is on the ticket:
>
> https://code.djangoproject.com/ticke
Hi all,
The patch for this is now ready, as far as I'm concerned, but I'd like
to bring it up here again before committing, mainly because Alex Gaynor
expressed some doubts.
The latest patch is on the ticket:
https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/16937
It is much longer than before, but mainly
This look great! I think this approach is better than the one's used
by other orms that force a single, heavy, query to retrieve the whole
many to many object graphs, would be nice to see it in 1.4
thanks
Nicola
On 1 Ott, 04:42, Luke Plant wrote:
> On 29/09/11 21:43, Alex Gaynor wrote:
>
> > Whe
On 29/09/11 21:43, Alex Gaynor wrote:
> When I did this externally a number of years ago, I basically subclassed
> ManyToManyField, overrode a bunch of code (quite a bit of copy paste as
> I recall), and it's related manager and made it return a custom
> queryset, which used a cache off of the obj
On 29/09/11 21:40, Florian Apolloner wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, September 27, 2011 11:37:06 PM UTC+2, Peter wrote:
>
> I'd just like to chime in to say this should definitely be part of
> core - it's a common requirement, and whilst it could be a third party
> app, it certainly feels m
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Florian Apolloner wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, September 27, 2011 11:37:06 PM UTC+2, Peter wrote:
>>
>> I'd just like to chime in to say this should definitely be part of
>> core - it's a common requirement, and whilst it could be a third party
>> app, it certainly fee
On Tuesday, September 27, 2011 11:37:06 PM UTC+2, Peter wrote:
>
> I'd just like to chime in to say this should definitely be part of
> core - it's a common requirement, and whilst it could be a third party
> app, it certainly feels much more at home in core.
>
+1, especially if it works with
On 28/09/11 00:07, Johannes Dollinger wrote:
>
> Am 27.09.2011 um 05:18 schrieb Luke Plant:
>
>> 1) could be done on a per-query basis and
>> 2) didn't require changes to the code that would use the QuerySet
>> objects i.e. fully API compatible.
>
> I don't believe (2) is an important requiremen
Am 27.09.2011 um 05:18 schrieb Luke Plant:
> On 27/09/11 03:23, Alex Gaynor wrote:
>
>> I'm not a fan of this, for a few reasons, firstly: because it feels
>> wrong for a QuerySet to execute multiple queries. This isn't a deal
>> breaker, just something that struck my conceptually initially. S
I'd just like to chime in to say this should definitely be part of
core - it's a common requirement, and whilst it could be a third party
app, it certainly feels much more at home in core.
On Sep 27, 1:13 pm, Luke Plant wrote:
> For me, QuerySet is at a level of abstraction where I don't think it
Hi Alex,
Just replying to your other objections, now I've had some time to think
about them:
On 27/09/11 03:23, Alex Gaynor wrote:
> I'm not a fan of this, for a few reasons, firstly: because it feels
> wrong for a QuerySet to execute multiple queries. This isn't a deal
> breaker, just somethin
On 27 sep, 05:18, Luke Plant wrote:
> On 27/09/11 03:23, Alex Gaynor wrote:
>
> Would you like to share your solution? I found it pretty difficult to
> come up with anything that:
>
> 1) could be done on a per-query basis and
> 2) didn't require changes to the code that would use the QuerySet
>
On 27/09/11 03:23, Alex Gaynor wrote:
> I'm not a fan of this, for a few reasons, firstly: because it feels
> wrong for a QuerySet to execute multiple queries. This isn't a deal
> breaker, just something that struck my conceptually initially. Second I
> disagree that it's difficult to do outside
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:50 PM, Luke Plant wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I finally got fed up with the common performance problem of ending up
> doing O(n) DB queries when you need the (many) related objects of a list
> of objects, and did something about it:
>
> https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/169
Hi all,
I finally got fed up with the common performance problem of ending up
doing O(n) DB queries when you need the (many) related objects of a list
of objects, and did something about it:
https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/16937
I'm pretty sure the concept is something desirable, the probl
19 matches
Mail list logo
