or may be just keep on using the QueuePool approach as it will always make sure to return the same connection to the current thread ?
On 7/20/07, Arun Kumar PG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Or, you can create your mapped objects per request, yes, or perhaps > per thread. > > >> how much can this cost in terms of performance ? > > On 7/20/07, Michael Bayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 19, 2007, at 4:39 PM, Arun Kumar PG wrote: > > > > > > > > Will this be a problem even if I attach a new session per incoming > > > request i.e. thread handling request ? So basically it's because of > > > having the same copy of mapped objects ? How can I solve the above > > > problem in existing way without using a QueuePool ? By creating > > > mapped objects per request ? > > > > the objects that were loaded within a particular session stay there > > until you remove them. therefore, whatever session you are using to > > load the objects, you should dispose of before putting the objects > > into a thread-global scope (you can call clear() on it to empty it > > out). Also, you probably want to load all of their related items > > either explicitly or through eager loading - since when the objects > > are detached, the lazy loaders will raise errors when called. > > > > Or, you can create your mapped objects per request, yes, or perhaps > > per thread. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Cheers, > > - A -- Cheers, - A --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
