On Friday 07 November 2008 19:18:35 Adam Ryan wrote: > OK, thank you. > > But one last thought: Is storing the query rather than the result > really the way? > > I mean, after a couple dozen complex, expensive change operations, > the user could end up with only 4 records. It would be more > efficient to just store the indexes rather than redo all the > queries over and over again. > > On the other hand, with only a few simple queries and thousands of > resulting records, storing the indexes is obviously a drain. > > Something about eating cake comes to mind. u can always create a new table and dump the references into it. for 4 or 4M records, all the same. then, join by it... storing the query is equivalent only as long as the db does not change meanwhile... the 4 records yesterday could grow into 14 today. And this can be defect and/or feature. so it depends who asks..
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
