On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Joseph L. Casale
wrote:
> I found that article before posting and some of the guys here have already
> started using peewee. I don't have much time with it yet. So far all I can say
> is its unfortunate some package authors take such an approach to naming.
>
> I ca
> Anything listed here http://www.pythoncentral.io/sqlalchemy-vs-orms/
> you've not heard about? I found peewee easy to use although I've
> clearly no idea if it suits your needs. There's only one way to find out :)
Hi Mark,
I found that article before posting and some of the guys here have alre
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Joseph L. Casale
wrote:
> I am stuck with the current architecture, but the idea you propose has
> been thrown around, truth is I am not certain if we are enduring the
> effort of such a large rewrite that Python is the tool to use (this is a
> Windows application)
On 04/12/2014 23:20, Joseph L. Casale wrote:
First recommendation: Less layers. Instead of SQLAlchemy, just import
sqlite3 and use it directly. You should be able to switch out "import
sqlite as db" for "import psycopg2 as db" or any other Python DB API
module, and still have most/all of the bene
> First recommendation: Less layers. Instead of SQLAlchemy, just import
> sqlite3 and use it directly. You should be able to switch out "import
> sqlite as db" for "import psycopg2 as db" or any other Python DB API
> module, and still have most/all of the benefit of the extra layer,
> without any e
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 5:14 AM, Joseph L. Casale
wrote:
> Begrudgingly, I need to migrate away from SQLAlchemy onto a
> package that has fast imports and very fast model build times.
>
> I have a less than ideal application that uses Python as a plugin
> interpreter which is not performant in this
