Re: [Django] #34943: Support passing unique constraint names to bulk_create().

2024-03-18 Thread Django 
#34943: Support passing unique constraint names to bulk_create().
-+-
 Reporter:  Alex Vandiver|Owner:  HAMA
 |  Barhamou
 Type:  New feature  |   Status:  assigned
Component:  Database layer   |  Version:  dev
  (models, ORM)  |
 Severity:  Normal   |   Resolution:
 Keywords:  bulk insert update   | Triage Stage:  Accepted
  upsert |
Has patch:  0|  Needs documentation:  0
  Needs tests:  0|  Patch needs improvement:  0
Easy pickings:  0|UI/UX:  0
-+-
Changes (by HAMA Barhamou):

 * owner:  (none) => HAMA Barhamou
 * status:  new => assigned

Comment:

 I will make a proposal to work on the ticket for GSoC 2024.
-- 
Ticket URL: 
Django 
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django updates" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-updates+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-updates/0107018e50dcb4a0-f891c3e2-df11-447e-935a-8d77d68a4456-00%40eu-central-1.amazonses.com.

Re: [Django] #34943: Support passing unique constraint names to bulk_create().

2024-03-11 Thread Django 
#34943: Support passing unique constraint names to bulk_create().
-+-
 Reporter:  Alex Vandiver|Owner:  (none)
 Type:  New feature  |   Status:  new
Component:  Database layer   |  Version:  dev
  (models, ORM)  |
 Severity:  Normal   |   Resolution:
 Keywords:  bulk insert update   | Triage Stage:  Accepted
  upsert |
Has patch:  0|  Needs documentation:  0
  Needs tests:  0|  Patch needs improvement:  0
Easy pickings:  0|UI/UX:  0
-+-
Changes (by Ülgen Sarıkavak):

 * cc: Ülgen Sarıkavak (added)

-- 
Ticket URL: 
Django 
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django updates" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-updates+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-updates/0107018e314d40b5-8f52859b-0dd4-4d35-a998-0958621447a9-00%40eu-central-1.amazonses.com.

Re: [Django] #34943: Support passing unique constraint names to bulk_create().

2024-03-10 Thread Django 
#34943: Support passing unique constraint names to bulk_create().
-+-
 Reporter:  Alex Vandiver|Owner:  (none)
 Type:  New feature  |   Status:  new
Component:  Database layer   |  Version:  dev
  (models, ORM)  |
 Severity:  Normal   |   Resolution:
 Keywords:  bulk insert update   | Triage Stage:  Accepted
  upsert |
Has patch:  0|  Needs documentation:  0
  Needs tests:  0|  Patch needs improvement:  0
Easy pickings:  0|UI/UX:  0
-+-
Changes (by Sujay):

 * owner:  Sujay => (none)
 * status:  assigned => new

-- 
Ticket URL: 
Django 
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django updates" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-updates+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-updates/0107018e287ff258-e47790ed-4775-4a70-9ccf-a400197ce59a-00%40eu-central-1.amazonses.com.

Re: [Django] #34943: Support passing unique constraint names to bulk_create().

2024-03-08 Thread Django 
#34943: Support passing unique constraint names to bulk_create().
-+-
 Reporter:  Alex Vandiver|Owner:  Sujay
 Type:  New feature  |   Status:  assigned
Component:  Database layer   |  Version:  dev
  (models, ORM)  |
 Severity:  Normal   |   Resolution:
 Keywords:  bulk insert update   | Triage Stage:  Accepted
  upsert |
Has patch:  0|  Needs documentation:  0
  Needs tests:  0|  Patch needs improvement:  0
Easy pickings:  0|UI/UX:  0
-+-
Comment (by HAMA Barhamou):

 Replying to [comment:3 Simon Charette]:
 > Maybe the would be an opportunity to deprecate/rename the
 `unique_fields` kwarg name to `unique_expressions` or `unique_together` to
 denote that not only fields are acceptable here.
 >
 > Or we could take an hybrid approach like we did with `Index` and
 `Constraint` where either allow `update_fields` or `update_expressions` to
 be specified.
 >
 > I get a sense that we should have preferred a `unique_constraint` kwarg
 that points to the name of an entry of `Meta.constraints` or the name of a
 `Field(unique)` in the first place instead of forcing users to specify the
 exact same index definition they have in their model,
 `Meta.unique_together`, or `Meta.constraints` instead.
 >
 > For backends that support the `ON CONFLICT ON CONSTRAINT` clause we
 could have simply used it for the constraint name specified otherwise we
 know what the index expression associated with the specified constraint is
 so we can generate the proper SQL.
 >
 > In other words, for a model like
 >
 > {{{#!python
 > class UserTopic(models.Model):
 > ...
 > class Meta:
 > constraints = [
 > UniqueConstraint(
 > 'user_profile_id','stream_id',Upper('topic_name'),
 > name='unique_profile_stream_topic'
 > )
 > ]
 > }}}
 >
 > The call to `bulk_create` could simply have been
 >
 > {{{#!python
 > UserTopic.objects.bulk_create(
 > [ut],
 > update_fields=['last_updated','visibility_policy'],
 > unique_constraint='unique_profile_stream_topic',
 > )
 > }}}
 >
 > ---
 >
 > My recommendation would be to introduce a `unique_constraint: str |
 tuple[str | Expression]` kwarg and deprecate `unique_fields`. When
 provided a `str` it would be a reference to a `UniqueConstraint` by
 `.name` and when it's a `tuple` it would be expected to be a index
 expression where `str` are resolved to field names.
 >
 > I guess the `str` -> `UniqueConstraint.name` part could be a distinct
 feature request but it seems related to this issue given the only way
 Django supports creating unique constraints composed of expressions is
 through `Meta.constaints` and having to define the exact expression twice
 is error prone.


 Hi, If you depreciated unique_fields, what would that mean for ticket
 #34277 [https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/34277], which I'm working
 on?
-- 
Ticket URL: 
Django 
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django updates" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-updates+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-updates/0107018e1ed472a9-614e7068-95df-4f7a-ab27-b1b13840a2c7-00%40eu-central-1.amazonses.com.

Re: [Django] #34943: Support passing unique constraint names to bulk_create().

2023-11-03 Thread Django 
#34943: Support passing unique constraint names to bulk_create().
-+-
 Reporter:  Alex Vandiver|Owner:  Sujay
 Type:  New feature  |   Status:  assigned
Component:  Database layer   |  Version:  dev
  (models, ORM)  |
 Severity:  Normal   |   Resolution:
 Keywords:  bulk insert update   | Triage Stage:  Accepted
  upsert |
Has patch:  0|  Needs documentation:  0
  Needs tests:  0|  Patch needs improvement:  0
Easy pickings:  0|UI/UX:  0
-+-
Changes (by Simon Charette):

 * cc: Simon Charette (added)


Comment:

 Makes sense.

 I guess that from an application maintenance perspective there are still
 benefits in using references to already defined constraint though, think
 of urlpattern names, annotations, lookups.

 To take back the example above nothing would prevent the ORM from simply
 resolving `unique_constraint='unique_profile_stream_topic'` to
 `('user_profile_id', 'stream_id', Upper('topic_name'))` and avoid the
 database level usage of `ON CONFLICT ON CONSTRAINT` if that's discouraged.

 In other words, the ''aliasing'' capabilities could be solely done at the
 application level assuming users opt-in into the usage of
 `Meta.constraints`. That would also happen to address the issue involved
 in dealing with the difference between unique indexes and constraints as
 Postgres treat them differently.

-- 
Ticket URL: 
Django 
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django updates" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-updates+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-updates/0107018b97763d37-a7ccdb89-a668-4c7d-9d12-bdcc96847f21-00%40eu-central-1.amazonses.com.

Re: [Django] #34943: Support passing unique constraint names to bulk_create().

2023-11-03 Thread Django 
#34943: Support passing unique constraint names to bulk_create().
-+-
 Reporter:  Alex Vandiver|Owner:  Sujay
 Type:  New feature  |   Status:  assigned
Component:  Database layer   |  Version:  dev
  (models, ORM)  |
 Severity:  Normal   |   Resolution:
 Keywords:  bulk insert update   | Triage Stage:  Accepted
  upsert |
Has patch:  0|  Needs documentation:  0
  Needs tests:  0|  Patch needs improvement:  0
Easy pickings:  0|UI/UX:  0
-+-

Comment (by Alex Vandiver):

 It's worth noting that [PostgreSQL's `INSERT`
 documentation](https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-insert.html)
 suggests ''against'' `ON CONFLICT ON CONSTRAINT`, preferring the raw list
 of expressions:
 > It is often preferable to use unique index inference rather than naming
 a constraint directly using `ON CONFLICT ON CONSTRAINT constraint_name`.
 Inference will continue to work correctly when the underlying index is
 replaced by another more or less equivalent index in an overlapping way,
 for example when using `CREATE UNIQUE INDEX ... CONCURRENTLY` before
 dropping the index being replaced.

 That is, naming a specific constraint is in general more brittle, since it
 depends on the specific name, rather than naming the ''effect'' of the
 constraint.

 In our particular use case, we also currently only have a unique index,
 not a constraint -- and I'm not sure how well doing that migration would
 go.  But that's a separate issue.

-- 
Ticket URL: 
Django 
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django updates" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-updates+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-updates/0107018b9555a1fd-fdf7e42d-c948-4fa7-9222-d999387ef831-00%40eu-central-1.amazonses.com.

Re: [Django] #34943: Support passing unique constraint names to bulk_create().

2023-11-03 Thread Django 
#34943: Support passing unique constraint names to bulk_create().
-+-
 Reporter:  Alex Vandiver|Owner:  SD-13
 Type:  New feature  |   Status:  assigned
Component:  Database layer   |  Version:  dev
  (models, ORM)  |
 Severity:  Normal   |   Resolution:
 Keywords:  bulk insert update   | Triage Stage:  Accepted
  upsert |
Has patch:  0|  Needs documentation:  0
  Needs tests:  0|  Patch needs improvement:  0
Easy pickings:  0|UI/UX:  0
-+-
Changes (by SD-13):

 * owner:  nobody => SD-13
 * status:  new => assigned


-- 
Ticket URL: 
Django 
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django updates" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-updates+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-updates/0107018b94eab3a7-1d76cbd6-bd87-4f71-a8cd-aa152f5867bb-00%40eu-central-1.amazonses.com.

Re: [Django] #34943: Support passing unique constraint names to bulk_create(). (was: Support passing database expressions to bulk_create()'s unique_fields.)

2023-11-02 Thread Django 
#34943: Support passing unique constraint names to bulk_create().
-+-
 Reporter:  Alex Vandiver|Owner:  nobody
 Type:  New feature  |   Status:  new
Component:  Database layer   |  Version:  dev
  (models, ORM)  |
 Severity:  Normal   |   Resolution:
 Keywords:  bulk insert update   | Triage Stage:  Accepted
  upsert |
Has patch:  0|  Needs documentation:  0
  Needs tests:  0|  Patch needs improvement:  0
Easy pickings:  0|UI/UX:  0
-+-

Comment (by Mariusz Felisiak):

 Great suggestion, Simon!

-- 
Ticket URL: 
Django 
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django updates" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-updates+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-updates/0107018b9376357a-91d05af1-5c19-4811-85b9-e1b853737ab5-00%40eu-central-1.amazonses.com.