Just a quick followup...
Thanks again for the help/advice. I did what you suggested, and the whole
query (with bulk_update_mappings) takes .16 seconds to return a result set
of 7800 records or so.
That's up from ~1.2 seconds it took before I did the optimizations.
--
SQLAlchemy -
The Python
query on the id or something.
On Friday, August 10, 2018 at 4:21:32 PM UTC-5, James Couch wrote:
>
> I think I see what you mean. Do an inline query/update, maybe just query
> by primary index for speed. I guess that won't add too much overhead, I'll
> give it a shot.
>
> On
I think I see what you mean. Do an inline query/update, maybe just query by
primary index for speed. I guess that won't add too much overhead, I'll
give it a shot.
On Friday, August 10, 2018 at 1:43:51 PM UTC-5, Mike Bayer wrote:
>
> You need to copy the keyedtuples into some other data
On Friday, August 10, 2018 at 4:03:06 PM UTC-5, Jonathan Vanasco wrote:
>
>
> A quick background on Mike's short answer... Tuples are immutable lists in
> Python, and "KeyedTuple" should indicate that you can't change the values.
> They're just a handy result storage object, not an ORM object
Hey all. Long time lurker, first time poster.
I'm using sqlalchemy ORM. We have a fairly decent sized data set, and one
table has a pretty large number of columns, some of them with foreignkeys.
I found that limiting a query to specific columns speeds up the time it
takes to come back with a
