Michael Bayer wrote: > > On Apr 4, 2008, at 3:46 PM, jason kirtland wrote: > >> Michael Bayer wrote: >>> On Apr 4, 2008, at 3:25 PM, jason kirtland wrote: >>> >>>> How about keeping it explicit: >>>> >>>> query(A.id, Node.name) -> ok >>> this is not OK since you'll get a cartesian product from A and Node. >> that's exactly what i intended. > > Well, I dont really think Query even needs to support returning > cartesian products. I'd hate to organize the API around a > nonexistent usecase and force an extra method call for the other 100% > of them.
It's not really about Cartesian products- query(Node.id, Node.name) is similarly valid and would be fine as long as no relations are required. if relations are needed, you could do either an explicit mapper 0 specification or just use an entity up front and choose columns at the end: query(Node).values(Node.id, Node.name). i think the basic relational nature of the query and a trailing .values() are somewhat orthogonal, so long as the .values() takes it's pool of possible columns from the current state of the query. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
