Unfortunately I'm inheriting the relational model from an old application.
I have dozens of tables using a single junction table for associations.
I can not completely redesign my relational model because it needs to be
compatible with the old application.
At this point, I think my best option
On 4/1/15 4:55 AM, Pierre B wrote:
Unfortunately I'm inheriting the relational model from an old
application. I have dozens of tables using a single junction table for
associations.
I can not completely redesign my relational model because it needs to
be compatible with the old application.
On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 2:56:31 AM UTC-4, jo wrote:
*session.query(Rischio.c.codice).select_from(Rischio).filter(Rischio.c.peso_gruppo
== '1') #**true*
*session.query(Rischio.c.codice).select_from(Rischio).filter(Rischio.c.peso_gruppo
== '0') #false*
I don't think that
Thanks for the comment.
If I understand you correctly, I'm going in a similar direction in trying
to keep transactions short. If there is a write to the database, I want a
commit or rollback shortly thereafter (usually on the order of milliseconds
rather than anywhere approaching the 5 second
Funnily enough I ran into this particular question regarding Peewee ORM
and, googling Postgresql UNION parentheses, I found this post. I ran into
the same thing where PG likes the parentheses, but SQLite doesn't. I know
this is a very old post, but out of curiosity, how did you end up resolving
On 4/1/15 10:28 AM, Pierre B wrote:
Here's a simple visual of the schema
OK, so that's called a polymorphic foreign key. SQLAlchemy doesn't have
first class support for this concept because it's relationally
incorrect, but there is an example at
On 4/1/15 12:08 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
Thanks Michael -- I appreciate how responsive you are to questions.
Yes, it would have been more precise to talk about pysqlite's locking
model rather than SQLite's. I'm hesitant to increase the lock timeout
because I don't think I want any transactions
On 4/1/15 1:21 PM, Simon Beertree wrote:
Hi all,
I have two classes, Product and Price, that have a many-to-many
relation through a secondary table (see attached test file). I'm
trying to delete all Prices that are not related to any Product. I
would expect the last query in the file to
I spoke too soon. Adding the .close() did not change things.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sqlalchemy group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sqlalchemy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to
On 4/1/15 4:47 PM, Jonathon Nelson wrote:
I spoke too soon. Adding the .close() did not change things.
well adding tests for these is hard since I can't really get the right
sequence of events to occur here, but the fix is just to put a list()
around the call which I've done, so try out master
On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 3:57:28 PM UTC-5, Michael Bayer wrote:
On 4/1/15 4:47 PM, Jonathon Nelson wrote:
I spoke too soon. Adding the .close() did not change things.
well adding tests for these is hard since I can't really get the right
sequence of events to occur here,
I've run into an interesting problem. A legacy bit of code basically does
this:
sess = session_factory()
while stuff_to_do:
sess.begin()
sometimes_add_stuff_to_sess()
if some_condition:
sess.rollback()
continue
other_stuff_here()
sess.commit()
I was getting
12 matches
Mail list logo
