I use the following code:
query = meta.Session.query(db.Object)
all_objects = [1,2,3]
objects = query.filter(db.Object.ObjectID.in_(*all_objects)).all()
And I get this error:
SADeprecationWarning: passing in_ arguments as varargs is deprecated,
in_ takes a single argument that is a sequence or a
SA version? sql dialect? what's table definition?
On Thursday 03 July 2008 14:43:44 Marin wrote:
I use the following code:
query = meta.Session.query(db.Object)
all_objects = [1,2,3]
objects = query.filter(db.Object.ObjectID.in_(*all_objects)).all()
And I get this error:
I got it... I wanted to replicate the error in a single file, but I
couldn't have them booth. I realized then that the problem was in 2
different SA version installed on my computer. Now that i removed the
older everything works correctly.
On Jul 3, 1:48 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SA version?
Hi list,
Could anybody tell me what's wrong with the following code? It's only
the code in the poly_assoc example directory (the generic version)
where I'm trying to set the polymorphic part of the relationship. It
gets me the traceback below and I don't really understand why:
Traceback (most
what that should do?
An association to a polymorphic object that is not
plain-class-hierarchy (which is, several associations, one per
subtype)?
i am asking as this seems as another way to do aspects/multiple
inheritance; my way is a single association with multiple references
(to the
Hi there,
I have an idea I'd like to bounce off people here. It relates to the
problem described here:
http://www.sqlalchemy.org/docs/05/session.html#unitofwork_contextual
The solution used there makes the assumption that each request will
happen in its own thread, and uses python's
On Jul 3, 2008, at 5:05 AM, Iwan wrote:
I was wondering if it is not possible to do something that is local to
the current call-stack, instead of the current thread. I think there
are two issues here:
a) a general mechanism for remembering a call-local context
b) using it to provide a
the first set of operations on the Session place every new object,
including two Address objects and two GenericAssoc objects, in the
session. Then the session is cleared. Then, a series of loads load
in all those same objects, including the same Address objects and
GenericAssoc
Hi everybody,
I am working on my graduate (final :)) exam, and SQLAlchemy is main
topic.
I was tryinig example from ORM tutorial:
from sqlalchemy import select, func
session.query(User).from_statement(
... select(
...[users_table],
...
On Jul 3, 2008, at 10:52 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it some better way of doing this?
keep reading the tutorial and then try
sess.query(User).filter(User.name==select([func.max(User.name)]))
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you
it is possible to dig the stack to find the context u need... no
worries about that, but u have to know the name of it, as there might
be two contexts living in same scope (e.g.: copy data from DB1 to
DB2), and u could get the wrong one -- python has no ordering in its
On Thursday 03 July 2008 17:15:40 Michael Bayer wrote:
the first set of operations on the Session place every new object,
including two Address objects and two GenericAssoc objects, in the
session. Then the session is cleared. Then, a series of loads
load in all those same objects,
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 6:01 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 03 July 2008 17:15:40 Michael Bayer wrote:
the first set of operations on the Session place every new object,
including two Address objects and two GenericAssoc objects, in the
session. Then the session is cleared. Then,
so my woe about this thing which i asked in the aspects-revisited
mail:
can i get all someaddress.members in ONE query?
some secondary mapper - but how? polymorphic-union?
On Thursday 03 July 2008 19:36:12 Gaetan de Menten wrote:
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 6:01 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On
also, can someone explain what is the difference (sql-plan-wise) in
the approaches?
this one is:
address -
addressable
- users
- orders
my one is otherway around:
address -
addressable
- users
- orders
both declare multiple (per-type)
seems this way many users can have same adress, but one user (or
order) cannot have more than one adress. so it's a polymorphic
1-to-many.
my one is for a many to many.
correct?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
On Jul 3, 2008, at 1:09 PM, Simon wrote:
Hi all,
I have a transactional session which save()s multiple objects to
multiple tables where each object potentially violates a unique
primary key or just a unique key constraint. At flush() time, MySQL
returns an IntegrityError which specifies
in this example, if u make another user u2 pointing to same address1,
u1.adresses goes wrong... - last one wins.
On Thursday 03 July 2008 19:36:12 Gaetan de Menten wrote:
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 6:01 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 03 July 2008 17:15:40 Michael Bayer wrote:
the
For example, you have user, post, comment table. Sharding is done by
user_id and shard_lookup is done via lookup table. If one is going to
create a post, you would lookup the user_id in the lookup table and
insert the post entry into the shard where the user_id belongs to.
How would you
19 matches
Mail list logo
