On 12/1/06 11:40 AM, Rob Hudson wrote:
>> 4 - If you search the archives (user and developer), you will find several
>> discussions on aggregate functions. group_by() and having() (or
>> pre-magic-removal analogs thereof) have been rejected previously on the
>> grounds that the Django ORM is not intended to be 'SQL with a different
>> syntax'. Any proposal for group_by/having will have to be logical from a
>> Django ORM point of view, and not presuppose/require knowledge of how SQL
>> formulates queries.

Indeed, and that's been the biggest thing keeping aggregates/grouping from 
Django's ORM.  I could really use 'em myself, but I'm not going to just kludge 
something on that doesn't fit with Django's overall philosophy.

Quite a lot of the problem in cases like this is syntax; if someone comes up 
with a clean, understandable syntax for doing aggregates -- in a way that 
makes sense even to those who don't really know SQL -- I'll be totally behind 
it.

And at that point, FYI, you'll want to take the discussion to django-dev where 
it will get a little more attention.

Jacob

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django users" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to