On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Florian Apolloner <f.apollo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 9:09:37 AM UTC+1, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote: >> >> The save() operation matches the semantics of upsert exactly - maybe we >> could use upsert there? > > Not sure .save() would be a good candidate for that. In the best case, > .save() should execute one INSERT or UPDATE query without extra junk for > "error" handling. Ie if you set a pk and want to update then pass > force_update into it. I know that we already try UPDATE followed by INSERT > in save() but I am wondering how often that is actually used by people.
Yes, it is likely that save() wouldn't benefit much from using upsert. Upsert is likely a bit slower than plain update, and we end up doing an update in almost all cases anyways. It could be an useful option for some use cases, but it likely isn't a good default. - Anssi -- 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/CALMtK1H4d%3DqEm--XrZuf310VXhGP_zt3q6pjQ0i-tV4quTYuBw%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
