Jupp, sounds good to me too -- will see that I get the PR updated this
afternoon
On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 1:20:04 AM UTC+1, charettes wrote:
>
> +1 to QuerySet.difference()
>
> Le mercredi 11 janvier 2017 17:00:12 UTC-5, sebleier a écrit :
>>
>> We cannot use the name "QuerySet.except()"
+1 to QuerySet.difference()
Le mercredi 11 janvier 2017 17:00:12 UTC-5, sebleier a écrit :
>
> We cannot use the name "QuerySet.except()" since except is a reserved word
>> in Python. Do you prefer minus() (as suggested by Florian), except_() (as
>> done by SQLAlchemy), or something else?
>>
>>
>
> We cannot use the name "QuerySet.except()" since except is a reserved word
> in Python. Do you prefer minus() (as suggested by Florian), except_() (as
> done by SQLAlchemy), or something else?
>
>
Can I suggest using "QuerySet.difference"? It's what python's sets use
for achieving the same fu
We cannot use the name "QuerySet.except()" since except is a reserved word
in Python. Do you prefer minus() (as suggested by Florian), except_() (as
done by SQLAlchemy), or something else?
On Monday, December 26, 2016 at 6:28:15 PM UTC-5, Adam Johnson wrote:
>
> Yes it's different, they cannot b
Yes it's different, they cannot be changed due to backwards compatibility
issues. They don't result in UNION in SQL, they union the filters on two
querysets that are on the same exact model.
On 26 December 2016 at 21:00, Cristiano Coelho
wrote:
> Is this going to be different from the pipe ( | )
Is this going to be different from the pipe ( | ) and and ( & ) operators
on querysets? If I'm not wrong those can already result in a union query
(but not necessary, sometimes it just returns a query with an or/and
condition)
El viernes, 23 de diciembre de 2016, 11:12:40 (UTC-3), Florian Apoll
Ok, everything seems to be working so far, I'll try adding `is_allowed`
over the next few days, then I can get rid of the extra `QuerySet` class.
On Friday, December 23, 2016 at 3:12:40 PM UTC+1, Florian Apolloner wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have a currently WIP PR at https://github.com/django/django/pu
Hi Simon,
On Friday, December 23, 2016 at 3:27:46 PM UTC+1, charettes wrote:
>
> users = User.objects.values(name=F('username'))
> groups = Group.objects.values('name')
>
> results = users.union(groups).distinct().order_by('name')[:10]
>
That does indeed work already, but it would be nice if it w
Hey Florian!
> How can I change the generated order_by clause to reference the columns
"unqualified" (ie without table name), can I somehow just realias every
column?
Now that we have F() aliasing working in iterator() I would suggest to
restrict
all combined queries to have the same set on fi
Hi,
I have a currently WIP PR at https://github.com/django/django/pull/7727
The usage is currently something like this:
qs1 = User.objects.all().values('username')
qs2 = Group.objects.all().values('name')
results = qs1.union(qs).distinct().order_by('name')[:10]
(order_by does not work though ye
10 matches
Mail list logo
