Ah I see, sorry, what I meant to ask was if there was a way to tell
the difference with _instances_ of orm objects
brendan
On Dec 8, 2007 7:32 PM, Michael Bayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 8, 2007, at 2:09 PM, Brendan Arnold wrote:
hmm strange, i tried this out with sqlalchemy
On Dec 6, 11:51 pm, Andrew Stromnov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have DB with onemasterserver and several replicated slaves
(MySQL). How to implement this functionality: read-only request can be
passed to any DB (masterorslave), but any write request with
following read requests must be sended
On Dec 9, 2007, at 10:10 AM, Brendan Arnold wrote:
Ah I see, sorry, what I meant to ask was if there was a way to tell
the difference with _instances_ of orm objects
youd call object_mapper(instance) and then do the same thing using
mapper.get_property().
On Dec 9, 2007, at 11:50 AM, Anton V. Belyaev wrote:
On Dec 6, 11:51 pm, Andrew Stromnov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have DB with onemasterserver and several replicated slaves
(MySQL). How to implement this functionality: read-only request can
be
passed to any DB (masterorslave), but any
Is this how you want to do it? Unfortunately, just your fix alone
doesn't do the trick BUT if you change line 901 of query.py to
context.exec_with_path(m, value.key, value.setup, context,
parentclauses=clauses)
it works, and all ORM tests run fine.
On Dec 8, 10:59 pm, Michael Bayer [EMAIL
But is Query object constructed by from_statement fully functional?
Using filter doesn't work for me - it returns the same query.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sqlalchemy group.
To post to this
On Dec 9, 2007, at 1:03 PM, Artur Siekielski wrote:
But is Query object constructed by from_statement fully functional?
Using filter doesn't work for me - it returns the same query.
no, from_statement replaces all filtering. so, what is it youre
trying to do exactly ?
On Dec 9, 2007, at 1:21 PM, Chris M wrote:
Is this how you want to do it? Unfortunately, just your fix alone
doesn't do the trick BUT if you change line 901 of query.py to
context.exec_with_path(m, value.key, value.setup, context,
parentclauses=clauses)
it works, and all ORM tests run
no, from_statement replaces all filtering.
Shouldn't it throw some exception then?
so, what is it youre trying to do exactly ?
I'm writing DAO module for db access which must be independent of rest
of the system. I'm looking for a class which can be used as a proxy
for SQL results. Query
Hi,
These days i'm playing with sqlalchemy to know if it can fit my
needs... I'm having some troubles with this ( maybe it's a real dumb
question.. or maybe a non supported feature.. :) ):
I have a database (mssql) with some tables with composite primary
keys... something like this:
t_jobs =
On Dec 9, 2007, at 2:31 PM, Artur Siekielski wrote:
no, from_statement replaces all filtering.
Shouldn't it throw some exception then?
funny you should say that, this week we've been adding warnings for
query methods that are called when they would ignore some part of the
existing
On Dec 9, 2007, at 2:54 PM, Smoke wrote:
When i create and save a j = Job(identifier, start), I have no
problems and it saves the new record on the table, but when i want to
update ( update or save_or_update ) the record with the stop time i
just don't update the record... It does not throw
Nope, eagerloads are a no-go. I tried changing 901 of query.py again
to:
context.exec_with_path(m, value.key, value.setup, context,
parentclauses=clauses, parentmapper=m)
but that did not work either. The code around exec_with_path and
setup_query confuses me, I'm not sure I can fix eagerloads
I'll commit what I have and some tests sometime soon so you can see
what's going on (unless you're by chance magical and already know
what's going on!)
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sqlalchemy
heres the output of:
sel = users.select(users.c.id.in_([7, 8])).alias()
sess.query(User).options(eagerload('addresses')).select_from(sel)[1]
SELECT anon_1.anon_2_id AS anon_1_anon_2_id, anon_1.anon_2_name AS
anon_1_anon_2_name, addresses_1.id AS addresses_1_id,
addresses_1.user_id AS
If I create an object, then save() it, potentially the object won't be
actually persisted until sqlalchemy decides that it needs to (for
example on flush/commit, or when some query involving Thing's table gets
executed) which is good. But (in my opinion) the lazyness is a bit too
lazy when it
On Dec 9, 2007, at 4:10 PM, Adam Batkin wrote:
If I create an object, then save() it, potentially the object won't be
actually persisted until sqlalchemy decides that it needs to (for
example on flush/commit, or when some query involving Thing's table
gets
executed) which is good. But
My thought is that sqlalchemy should force the object to be flushed
(or
whatever must be done to determine the ID, possibly just selecting the
next value from a sequence) when the id property is retrieved.
can't be done for mysql, sqlite, MSSQL, others, without issuing an
INSERT.
On Dec 9, 2007, at 3:59 PM, Chris M wrote:
I'll commit what I have and some tests sometime soon so you can see
what's going on (unless you're by chance magical and already know
what's going on!)
im doing some surgery on Query at the momentmight be better if you
wait for the next
On 9 Dic, 21:37, Michael Bayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
theyre entirely supported. try to provide a fully working example
illustrating the problem youre having.
Here's a small example just to simulate the problem.. The last part of
this code is there just to simulate the problem... normally
On Dec 9, 2007, at 4:57 PM, Adam Batkin wrote:
Ahh, but session.save() was already called, so trying to fetch a
database-generated attribute (such as the primary key in my case)
should
trigger a flush of the row itself. That can be done with any database.
It wouldn't be done on __init__,
On Dec 9, 2007, at 2:31 PM, Artur Siekielski wrote:
I'm writing DAO module for db access which must be independent of rest
of the system. I'm looking for a class which can be used as a proxy
for SQL results. Query would be good, if it would be possible to have
fully functional Query
I hate to disagree here, and I can see what you're getting at, but
honestly, the INSERT on save() approach is exactly the naive active-
record-like pattern that SQLAlchemy's ORM was designed to get away from.
The way the unit of work functions, we dont generate ids until a flush
Any query using sql expressions is going to want to use correctly typed data
-- you're trying to query a date column with a string value. The LIKE
operator is for string data.
I'm not up on my mssql date expressions, but the answer is going to resemble
something like this:
I cant reproduce your problem, although i dont have access to MSSQL
here and there may be some issue on that end. Attached is your script
using an in-memory sqlite database, with the update inside of a while
loop, and it updates regularly.A few things to try on the MSSQL
side, if the
I am using SA 0.3.11 and I would like to know if there is a way to get
a query object from a relation property. I have several one-to-many
relationships in my application. These are all setup and work very
well, but I find that I often want to perform further filtering of the
objects in the
On Dec 9, 2007, at 10:55 PM, Allen Bierbaum wrote:
I am using SA 0.3.11 and I would like to know if there is a way to get
a query object from a relation property. I have several one-to-many
relationships in my application. These are all setup and work very
well, but I find that I often
27 matches
Mail list logo
