[sqlalchemy] keeping long filter statements easily readable?
I've stumbled across someof my old query and got certain problems to read my bunch of where statements. The editors word wrap function makes things just worse. whats your advance to keep long filter statements readable, one where statement per line would be great. e.g.: obj = dbObj.query(table).filter(table.foo1 == False AND include more filter statements here).order_by(table.foo2).all() best wishes, julien -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sqlalchemy group. To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sqlalchemy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en.
Re: [sqlalchemy] Lock table, do things to table, unlock table: Best way?
On May 27, 2012, at 1:07 AM, Jeff wrote: I have multiple processes accessing a table. All of these processes want to read a set of rows from the table, and if the rows are not present they will make a calculation and insert the rows themselves. The issue comes where process A does a query to see if the target set of rows is present in the table, and they're not, and then another starts calculating. While it's calculating, process B inserts the rows. Then process A inserts the rows, and now we have two copies of these sets of rows. Bad. You should look at SELECT FOR UPDATE. http://docs.sqlalchemy.org/en/rel_0_7/orm/query.html?highlight=lockmode#sqlalchemy.orm.query.Query.with_lockmode Cheers, M -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sqlalchemy group. To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sqlalchemy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en.
[sqlalchemy] Re: Lock table, do things to table, unlock table: Best way?
Thanks, I have indeed spent a lot of time looking at SELECT FOR UPDATE, but as far as I can tell that locks rows that have been selected. That is not helpful in this use case, in which the issue is rows not existing, and then later existing. Am I misunderstanding? On May 27, 11:48 am, A.M. age...@themactionfaction.com wrote: On May 27, 2012, at 1:07 AM, Jeff wrote: I have multiple processes accessing a table. All of these processes want to read a set of rows from the table, and if the rows are not present they will make a calculation and insert the rows themselves. The issue comes where process A does a query to see if the target set of rows is present in the table, and they're not, and then another starts calculating. While it's calculating, process B inserts the rows. Then process A inserts the rows, and now we have two copies of these sets of rows. Bad. You should look at SELECT FOR UPDATE. http://docs.sqlalchemy.org/en/rel_0_7/orm/query.html?highlight=lockmo... Cheers, M -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sqlalchemy group. To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sqlalchemy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en.
