the issue is resolved in r5088. a special exception is made for the
specific combination of "q.order_by().get()". ORDER BY is still
dropped from the resulting SQL.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Grou
On Sep 6, 2008, at 7:35 AM, Kyle Schaffrick wrote:
> I imagine using the "ambiguous" discriminator instead of "nonsensical"
> might partition the various other query criteria a bit differently as
> well, but in my present state of mental capacity, order_by() is the
> only
> one I can think of
the order_by set on the mapper() is stripped out when using get() with
0.5:
import sqlalchemy as sa
import sqlalchemy.orm as orm
from sqlalchemy.ext.declarative import declarative_base
import StringIO
import logging
buf = StringIO.StringIO()
logging.basicConfig(stream=buf, format = '%(message
> > However, I'd much rather discuss things from a different
> > standpoint. Let me rephrase the question - what is /wrong/ (not /
> > nonsensical/) about combining order_by with get(X)? The only
> > difference in the SQL generated is, in fact, the ORDER BY which
> > shouldn't matter.
>
> get() ac
On Sep 4, 7:01 pm, Michael Bayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In this case it means a doubling of the number of queries I already
> > have, and those queries are indexed by name. Since the queries
> > (sometimes fairly complex) would be almost exactly the same it would
> > actually make things m
On Sep 4, 2008, at 7:19 PM, Jon wrote:
>
>> In your specific case, I don't see what's so hard about creating a
>> Query which has *only* those aspects which make sense both to a get()
>> as well as a join()/order_by() combination (in this case the
>> eagerload
>> options), and passing that to
On Sep 4, 5:54 pm, Michael Bayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> as usual, since this one might turn out to be pretty controversial, I
> welcome the list to comment on this one. The order_by().get() idea
> does fall in the category of "nonsensical" as opposed to "ambiguous" ,
> perhaps thats
On Sep 4, 5:43 pm, Michael Bayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sep 4, 2008, at 5:55 PM, Jon wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I'll note that I find building a single query for potentially several
> > uses quite handy, whether I'm doing a get() or an additional filter/
> > filter_by. By prebuilding as much
as usual, since this one might turn out to be pretty controversial, I
welcome the list to comment on this one. The order_by().get() idea
does fall in the category of "nonsensical" as opposed to "ambiguous" ,
perhaps thats the distinction we'd want to go on.
--~--~-~--~~--
On Sep 4, 2008, at 6:38 PM, Jon wrote:
> I'd still like to request that order by be allowed - there is a big
> difference between "makes no sense" and "is an error".
At the moment I'm pretty convinced that allowing "makes no sense" to
pass through silently is poor behavior.
--~--~--
On Sep 4, 2008, at 5:55 PM, Jon wrote:
>
> I'll note that I find building a single query for potentially several
> uses quite handy, whether I'm doing a get() or an additional filter/
> filter_by. By prebuilding as much of the query as possible I reduce
> the overall complexity of my application
On Sep 4, 5:31 pm, Michael Bayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sep 4, 2008, at 5:33 PM, Jon wrote:
>
>
>
> > I'll note that if I use something like this in the ORM mapper
> > definition:
>
> > order_by=meta.tables['some_table'].c.some_column,
>
> > get(pkey) continues to work *and* ORDER BY
On Sep 4, 2008, at 5:33 PM, Jon wrote:
>
> I'll note that if I use something like this in the ORM mapper
> definition:
>
> order_by=meta.tables['some_table'].c.some_column,
>
> get(pkey) continues to work *and* ORDER BY is used in the SQL.
> While ORDER BY doesn't make sense when acquiring
On Sep 4, 4:33 pm, Jon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sep 4, 3:32 pm, Michael Bayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 4, 2008, at 4:17 PM, Jon wrote:
>
> > > I'm using 0.4.6 but I thought I'd give 0.5b3 a try.
>
> > > An existing (working) query failed with:
>
> > > Query.__no_criteri
On Sep 4, 3:32 pm, Michael Bayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sep 4, 2008, at 4:17 PM, Jon wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I'm using 0.4.6 but I thought I'd give 0.5b3 a try.
>
> > An existing (working) query failed with:
>
> > Query.__no_criterion() being called on a Query with existing
> > criterion.
On Sep 4, 2008, at 4:32 PM, Michael Bayer wrote:
>
>
> On Sep 4, 2008, at 4:17 PM, Jon wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm using 0.4.6 but I thought I'd give 0.5b3 a try.
>>
>> An existing (working) query failed with:
>>
>> Query.__no_criterion() being called on a Query with existing
>> criterion.
>>
>> I tracke
On Sep 4, 2008, at 4:17 PM, Jon wrote:
>
> I'm using 0.4.6 but I thought I'd give 0.5b3 a try.
>
> An existing (working) query failed with:
>
> Query.__no_criterion() being called on a Query with existing
> criterion.
>
> I tracked that down to using order_by when building the query.
> An exampl
17 matches
Mail list logo
