On Thursday 02 October 2008 22:26:06 Michael Bayer wrote: > On Oct 2, 2008, at 11:57 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > hi > > lets say, A points to B. > > i do a query against A about which things link to some instance > > of B. then, > > 1) if i specify eagerload, i get many times same object-data > > being piped from the server; ok but i dont want it > > 2) if i dont specify eagerload (lazy), access to each A fires a > > lazyload-query for the (same) B! Although the object is in memory > > already. is this expected behaviour or? the relevant dbid is > > already present, hence it can be checked against session-caches > > etc?? what should i do here? > > if you load an A that wasnt previously present, its A.bs collection > is empty. > The individual B objects might be in the session but the > information that they are associated with your "A" is not present, > unless we scanned through the Session and matched up foreign keys. > This latter approach basically turns Session into its own > relational engine which is why we dont even try to get into that. > So the lazy query for the"B"s proceeds, but we do reuse the B's > already present in the session so there is far less overhead > associated with fetching the rows. > > The approach taken by some ORMs Ive seen is to link the A.bs load > to load the .bs for *all* As. That seems pretty "dirty" to me > since it means we have to keep track of Queries and such.
nah, it's a simple *toone singular reference, not a collection. can't something be done for it? hack something somewhere? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
