On Nov 10, 2008, at 3:42 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Right now I'm playing with mapper inheritance. The first stumbling > block I've come to is the case where the local table doesn't yet have > a row for the object from the base table. In that case, a query on my > subclassed object returns nothing. Do I need to write an import > program > that creates rows in the local tables for any items in the imported > data > that don't yet have them? That strikes me as rather fragile. Is > there > a way to automate the creation of the local table row with default > values? using table inheritance implies that for a subclass such as ExtendedFoo, both tables are populated at all times. So yes you'd have to work out some way to ensure that the database is in the state required to use SQLAs table inheritance functionality. The system you're using to populate the "base" tables would need to be extended in this way. > Or am I approaching this all wrong? Possibly. The "fragility" here is that you are relying on a model that isn't actually implemented here, i.e. that your application is written around a table inheritance assumption when that is not actually the case - the "extended" tables may or may not have a row present for a corresponding base row. It would likely be more straightforward to implement a non-inheriting system. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
