On May 22, 2011, at 5:43 AM, Faheem Mitha wrote:
[This message has also been posted.]
On Fri, 20 May 2011 09:44:36 -0400, Michael Bayer mike...@zzzcomputing.com
wrote:
OK so not just schema names, table structure as well. So yeah so
you're using the same classes among entirely different
[This message has also been posted.]
On Fri, 20 May 2011 09:44:36 -0400, Michael Bayer mike...@zzzcomputing.com
wrote:
OK so not just schema names, table structure as well. So yeah so
you're using the same classes among entirely different databases
essentially, so yeah just like our tests
On Fri, 20 May 2011 00:52:28 -0400, Michael Bayer mike...@zzzcomputing.com
wrote:
On May 19, 2011, at 5:24 PM, Faheem Mitha wrote:
Unfortunately, that is not true. (So I guess just leaving the
structure alone and switching dbs will not work.) There are 4
possible different database
On May 20, 2011, at 4:48 AM, Faheem Mitha wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2011 00:52:28 -0400, Michael Bayer mike...@zzzcomputing.com
wrote:
On May 19, 2011, at 5:24 PM, Faheem Mitha wrote:
Unfortunately, that is not true. (So I guess just leaving the
structure alone and switching dbs will not
Hi,
I'm belatedly following up on this earlier thread from October 2010. I
decided to go back to it and figure out what the problem was. So, I
created a working minimal example. I posted on StackOverflow, but it
doesn't seem to have attracted much interest, so I'm copying it
here. The SO link is
On May 19, 2011, at 5:04 AM, Faheem Mitha wrote:
from sqlalchemy import *
from sqlalchemy.orm import *
def make_pheno_table(meta, schema, name='pheno'):
pheno_table = Table(
name, meta,
Column('patientid', String(60), primary_key=True),
schema=schema,
)
Hi Michael,
Thanks for the reply.
On Thu, 19 May 2011 10:59:18 -0400, Michael Bayer mike...@zzzcomputing.com
wrote:
I'm sure I mentioned earlier, one of the reasons you're finding this
difficult is because of this type of pattern, where you're calling
mapper() and Table at a different scope
On May 19, 2011, at 4:02 PM, Faheem Mitha wrote:
Hi Michael,
Thanks for the reply.
On Thu, 19 May 2011 10:59:18 -0400, Michael Bayer mike...@zzzcomputing.com
wrote:
I'm sure I mentioned earlier, one of the reasons you're finding this
difficult is because of this type of pattern,
Hi Michael,
On Thu, 19 May 2011 16:13:49 -0400, Michael Bayer mike...@zzzcomputing.com
wrote:
Dont wipe anything clean - keep the state of each set of stuff
separate. A global dictionary perhaps, with an record inside for
each configuration.
Could you elaborate on what you have in mind?
On May 19, 2011, at 4:48 PM, Faheem Mitha wrote:
Hi Michael,
On Thu, 19 May 2011 16:13:49 -0400, Michael Bayer mike...@zzzcomputing.com
wrote:
Dont wipe anything clean - keep the state of each set of stuff
separate. A global dictionary perhaps, with an record inside for
each
On Thu, 19 May 2011 16:57:14 -0400, Michael Bayer mike...@zzzcomputing.com
wrote:
On May 19, 2011, at 4:48 PM, Faheem Mitha wrote:
Hi Michael,
On Thu, 19 May 2011 16:13:49 -0400, Michael Bayer
mike...@zzzcomputing.com wrote:
Dont wipe anything clean - keep the state of each set of stuff
On May 19, 2011, at 5:24 PM, Faheem Mitha wrote:
Unfortunately, that is not true. (So I guess just leaving the
structure alone and switching dbs will not work.) There are 4 possible
different database layouts. Also, there can be multiple schemas in
each database.
So you have a model with
12 matches
Mail list logo
