Mike's suggestion is correct, and I want to add that relationship() / relation() do not require a foreign key constraint, they just are able to figure out the mapping more automatically (without a primaryjoin argument in unambiguous cases) if you do have one existing on the table.
On Mar 15, 6:22 pm, recurse <ken...@walkscore.com> wrote: > I'm wondering if there is a way to define a relationship without > creating an associated foreign key constraint in the database. It > seems like relationship() requires me to define a foreign key, and > that in turn automatically creates a foreign key constraint. I'm > currently using the declarative syntax to define my tables. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sqlalchemy" group. To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sqlalchemy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en.
