> >> cls.query.left_bracket().filter_or(cls.y == > >> 17).filter_or(cls.x==27).right_bracket() > >> is clearer than this: > >> cls.query.filter(or_(cls.y == 17, cls.x==27)) > > > > it's not. it's not about replacing the or_. noone should use it > > that way... > > > > u have horses and owners with houses and hats. > > give me horses (whose owners have a hat of size 10 and color > > green) or (whose owners have a house of color red) or (have no > > tail) > > filter(or_( > horses.owners.any(hatsize=10, color='green'), > horses.owners.any(and_(owners.house_id==houses.house_id, > houses.color=='red')), > horses.tail == None > ))
ahha, so thats how joins can go inside or_(). isn't this (i guess it has subselects) more expensive than a single plain or/and clause? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
