Well as I wrote ordering involves everything, also forms creation with
formalchemy (make a select where all sensors are ordered that way etc)
anyway I understand your point of view.

> quickest is a "where sensor id not in (query)", as a simple WHERE clause

Problem comes when Sensor primary key is composite (id_cu +
id_meas)...

The good 'ol python comes in handy anyway:

>>> all = Session.query(model.Sensor).all()
>>> selected = Session.query(model.Sensor).filter(
... model.Sensor.id_cu==model.ViewOpt.id_cu).filter(
... model.Sensor.id_meas==model.ViewOpt.id_meas).filter(
... model.ViewOpt.id_view==1).all()
>>> diff = [sens for sens in all if sens not in selected]
>>> len(all), len(selected), len(diff)
(154, 6, 148)

We're talking of working on max total 200/300 sensors.

The OR way did not filter anything (maybe I made somwthing wrong).

Greetings

On Jan 12, 4:04 pm, Michael Bayer <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jan 12, 2011, at 8:46 AM, neurino wrote:
>
> > I need always the same order_by in all app and it could be subject of
> > modification and / or integration in the near future so which better
> > place than mapper to define it once instead of any time I do a query?
>
> It sounds like the ordering here is for the purposes of view logic so I'd 
> have view logic that is factored down to receive Query objects that return 
> Sensor rows, the view logic then applies the .order_by() to the Query.   I.e. 
> in a web app I use a Paginator object of some kind that does this, given a 
> Query.   This is probably a reason I don't like "order_by" to be within 
> mapper(), it doesn't define persistence, rather a view.
>
>
>
> > Anyway do you think there are alternate paths to get `all sensors but
> > already choosen` which are "order_by" compatible?
>
> quickest is a "where sensor id not in (query)", as a simple WHERE clause, or 
> use OR, "query sensor where sensor.cu != cu OR sensor.meas != meas OR 
> sensor.view  != view".   "Except" is not as widely used and I think its not 
> even supported by all backends, even though it is a nice logical set 
> operator, its got annoying quirks like this one.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Thanks for your support
>
> > On Jan 12, 2:38 pm, Michael Bayer <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Jan 12, 2011, at 7:28 AM, neurino wrote:
>
> >>> I have this model:
>
> >>> ``I organize views with many view_options each one showing a sensor.
> >>> A sensor can appear just once per view.``
>
> >>> sensors = Table('sensors', metadata,
> >>>    Column('id_cu', Integer, ForeignKey('ctrl_units.id'),
> >>> primary_key=True,
> >>>            autoincrement=False),
> >>>    Column('id_meas', Integer, primary_key=True, autoincrement=False),
> >>>    Column('id_elab', Integer, nullable=False),
> >>>    Column('name', Unicode(40), nullable=False),
> >>>    Column('desc', Unicode(80), nullable=True),
> >>>    )
>
> >>> ctrl_units = Table('ctrl_units', metadata,
> >>>    Column('id', Integer, primary_key=True, autoincrement=False),
> >>>    Column('name', Unicode(40), nullable=False)
> >>>    )
>
> >>> views = Table('views', metadata,
> >>>    Column('id', Integer, primary_key=True),
> >>>    Column('name', Unicode(40), nullable=False),
> >>>    Column('desc', Unicode(80), nullable=True),
> >>>    )
>
> >>> view_opts = Table('view_opts', metadata,
> >>>    Column('id', Integer, primary_key=True),
> >>>    Column('id_view', Integer, ForeignKey('views.id'),
> >>> nullable=False),
> >>>    Column('id_cu', Integer, ForeignKey('ctrl_units.id'),
> >>> nullable=False),
> >>>    Column('id_meas', Integer, nullable=False),
> >>>    Column('ord', Integer, nullable=False),
> >>>    ForeignKeyConstraint(('id_cu', 'id_meas'),
> >>>                         ('sensors.id_cu', 'sensors.id_meas')),
> >>>    #sensor can appear just once per view
> >>>    UniqueConstraint('id_view', 'id_cu', 'id_meas'),
> >>>    )
>
> >>> Now I let the user add view_options letting him select the sensor.
> >>> I'd like to show him only the sensors not already selected in other
> >>> options of the same parent view so I tried to use except_ this way:
>
> >>> q = Session.query(model.Sensor) \
> >>>            .except_(
> >>>                Session.query(model.Sensor) \
> >>>                .filter(model.Sensor.id_cu==model.ViewOpt.id_cu) \
> >>>                .filter(model.Sensor.id_meas==model.ViewOpt.id_meas) \
> >>>                .filter(model.ViewOpt.id_view==1)
> >>>                )
>
> >>> Sensor mapping has a order_by:
>
> >>> orm.mapper(Sensor, sensors,
> >>>    order_by=[sensors.c.id_cu,
> >>>                      sensors.c.id_meas
> >>>   ])
>
> >>> I get this SQL and this error, probably due to mapping order_by in
> >>> Sensor:
>
> >>> (OperationalError) ORDER BY clause should come after EXCEPT not
> >>> before
> >>> u'SELECT anon_1.sensors_id_cu AS anon_1_sensors_id_cu,
> >>> anon_1.sensors_id_meas AS anon_1_sensors_id_meas,
> >>> anon_1.sensors_id_elab AS anon_1_sensors_id_elab, anon_1.sensors_name
> >>> AS anon_1_sensors_name, anon_1.sensors_desc AS anon_1_sensors_desc
> >>> FROM (SELECT sensors.id_cu AS sensors_id_cu, sensors.id_meas AS
> >>> sensors_id_meas, sensors.id_elab AS sensors_id_elab, sensors.name AS
> >>> sensors_name, sensors."desc" AS sensors_desc
> >>> FROM sensors ORDER BY sensors.id_cu, sensors.id_meas EXCEPT SELECT
> >>> sensors.id_cu AS sensors_id_cu, sensors.id_meas AS sensors_id_meas,
> >>> sensors.id_elab AS sensors_id_elab, sensors.name AS sensors_name,
> >>> sensors."desc" AS sensors_desc
> >>> FROM sensors, view_opts
> >>> WHERE sensors.id_cu = view_opts.id_cu AND sensors.id_meas =
> >>> view_opts.id_meas AND view_opts.id_view = ? ORDER BY sensors.id_cu,
> >>> sensors.id_meas) AS anon_1 ORDER BY anon_1.sensors_id_cu,
> >>> anon_1.sensors_id_meas'
>
> >>> is this supposed to be a bug?
>
> >>> Any alternative solution (and maybe simpler :) ) to get what I need?
>
> >> I suppose its a bug, though I'm not a huge fan of "order_by" on mapper 
> >> though, so my recommendation would be to not rely upon that.   A solution 
> >> in SQLA would be if some flag were passed through to not render built-in 
> >> order bys.  I've added 2022 targeted for 0.7.xx for that.
>
> > --
> > 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, send email to 
> > [email protected].
> > For more options, visit this group 
> > athttp://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en.

-- 
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, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en.

Reply via email to