Hey I was wondering if it was possible to replace an engine in a
session. It does not seem to work, but maybe I'm doing something
really stupid.
http://pastie.org/322501
Kindest regards,
Koen Bok - madebysofa.com
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message
Oops, not quite right. str(table.c.colname) returns 'table.colname,
and that doesn't work right as dictionary key. You need col only as
dictionary key.
http://pastebin.com/fd0653b0 has some tests
Interesting question is does SA intend that table.colname work in
the dictionary definition?
--
Harish Vishwanath wrote:
Hello,
Thanks for your input. I consulted PySqlite's docs :
They have something like Connection.text_factory, which is by default set
to
Unicode. If it is set to str, that is.,
connection.text_factory = str, then it wont convert strings to Unicode.
I glanced
the actual Column object or its key can be placed in the dict.
MikeCo wrote:
Oops, not quite right. str(table.c.colname) returns 'table.colname,
and that doesn't work right as dictionary key. You need col only as
dictionary key.
http://pastebin.com/fd0653b0 has some tests
Interesting
Using 0.5.0rc4 doesn't seem to do that. or what am I doing wrong?
The test, http://pastebin.com/fd0653b0 , looks like when using the
Column object, the values inserted are all None (test 1). When the key
is the fully qualified table.column, the value inserted is always
the default value for the
oh, right. Column objects only work when you say insert().values(**dict).
MikeCo wrote:
Using 0.5.0rc4 doesn't seem to do that. or what am I doing wrong?
The test, http://pastebin.com/fd0653b0 , looks like when using the
Column object, the values inserted are all None (test 1). When the
that is the way to do it as far as switching engines. your example
doesn't work because the state of p1 is persistent as opposed to
pending, so the example updates a row that isn't there.
you need to build a copy constructor on Person and make a new,
non-persistent Person object for your
Ok, that sounds logical, but that defeats the purpose of it for me :-)
Whenever a Checkout user logs out I clear the session. On a new login
I create fresh session that has to re-cache lot of data. The logins
depend on a valid postgres user. If I could find a way to replace the
engine/connection
cant u cache all these objects elsewhere then sess.merge() them?
On Monday 24 November 2008 22:33:53 Koen Bok wrote:
Ok, that sounds logical, but that defeats the purpose of it for me
:-)
Whenever a Checkout user logs out I clear the session. On a new
login I create fresh session that has
Not yet, I'm still recovering from the first one :-).
On Nov 20, 10:50 pm, Michael Bayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
very nice - this fix is applied in r5314. It's not every day someone
gives us a patch for strategies.py...have any more ? :)
On Nov 20, 2008, at 9:47 PM, Yoann Roman wrote:
I was wondering if it would be possible to get the code changed to
accept the poolclass argument to create_engine (and other functions?)
optionally as a string reference to a Pool subclass rather than
requiring the class itself.
The reason I ask is because SQLAlchemy is often a component of a
http://pastebin.ca/1266308
In the link above you will see some output and code.
Some questions I have:
1) Why are these queries taking on a magnitude of 10 times slower than
they should be?
2) Could it be the implementation I am using? If so what is
recommended for using the system as you see
On Nov 24, 2008, at 8:50 PM, TheShadow wrote:
http://pastebin.ca/1266308
In the link above you will see some output and code.
Some questions I have:
1) Why are these queries taking on a magnitude of 10 times slower than
they should be?
2) Could it be the implementation I am using? If
On Nov 24, 2008, at 11:47 PM, Harish Vishwanath wrote:
Hello,
Thanks for your reply. Please see the below implementation :
Implementation 1:
def my_con_func():
... print My Connection func
... import sqlite3.dbapi2 as sqlite
... con = sqlite.connect(:memory:)
...
which frameworks are we talking about here ? since yes I think if a
framework is going to take over the job of calling create_engine()
then they should provide proper inputs. There's a lot of things which
can be passed to create_engine() which don't work as strings.
On Nov 24, 2008,
First I appreciate your responding. But I need more information as to
why this is taking so long and this is because of the following:
When I started looking for a DBAPI I started with the MySQLdb module
executing queries against local host versus a remote host was faster
but even against remote
On Nov 25, 2008, at 12:51 AM, TheShadow wrote:
First I appreciate your responding. But I need more information as to
why this is taking so long and this is because of the following:
When I started looking for a DBAPI I started with the MySQLdb module
executing queries against local host
I was talking about TurboGears.
I must admit I had assumed that these were considered details that
most frameworks would prefer to hide away as TG does, but a quick look
over at Pylons suggests they've implemented a somewhat more
customizable way of initiating the engine but involves a bit more
Below, I have attached a working testcase. It works, yes -- but my
question is that I need to make an improved version of a particular
method on one of my classes. The following model will probably
explain itself for the most part. I'll let you read it first, then
offer a few explanatory notes
19 matches
Mail list logo
