Thanks for all your hard work tracking down this issue.
Jon.
On May 29, 8:02 pm, "Michael Bayer" wrote:
> Michael Bayer wrote:
>
> > Michael Bayer wrote:
>
> >> Jonathan Marshall wrote:
>
> >>> How is the sqlalchemy's outptut of parameters generated? It has the
> >>> wrong value in it.
>
> >> ho
Michael Bayer wrote:
>
> Michael Bayer wrote:
>>
>> Jonathan Marshall wrote:
>>>
>>> How is the sqlalchemy's outptut of parameters generated? It has the
>>> wrong value in it.
>>
>> hold that thought, I've reproduced the bug.
>
> its a hash collision resulting from a hopefully undocumented usage o
Michael Bayer wrote:
>
> Jonathan Marshall wrote:
>>
>> How is the sqlalchemy's outptut of parameters generated? It has the
>> wrong value in it.
>
> hold that thought, I've reproduced the bug.
its a hash collision resulting from a hopefully undocumented usage of the
"params" dict you send to exe
Jonathan Marshall wrote:
>
> How is the sqlalchemy's outptut of parameters generated? It has the
> wrong value in it.
hold that thought, I've reproduced the bug.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sq
Jonathan Marshall wrote:
>
> How is the sqlalchemy's outptut of parameters generated? It has the
> wrong value in it.
there is a loop on line 227 of sqlalchemy/engine/default.py.
> I find it interesting that 99,997 values are correct on a 100,000
> parameter query and 50,000 parameters works som
How is the sqlalchemy's outptut of parameters generated? It has the
wrong value in it.
I find it interesting that 99,997 values are correct on a 100,000
parameter query and 50,000 parameters works sometimes but not always.
It implies that this is a bug somewhere, like a race condition, rather
tha
There is nothing special about SQLAlchemy's handling of many parameters
versus a few, and it's likely a limiation of the IN clause as implemented
on those backends. IN does not support arbitrarily large numbers of
parameters. On Oracle for example the limit is 1000. If you need to do
a large n
