sorry to tune in late, but how different is AmazonDB from googleDB? googleDB seems like a plain non-relational DB like berkeleyDB/btrieve kind of thing.
to map a relational and non-relational schemas in same way u need higher level of abstraction - sqlalchemy is only about sql. so i had an idea to make a backend for googledb and similars for my http://dbcook.sf.net, which uses higher level of abstraction - but the idea haven't progressed into anything real. Now it translates your declarational schema only into sqlalchemy... but that isn't the only possiblity. Thus to say - if dbcook.sf.net can be of help, use it. Mail me if anyone interested in digging further. ciao svilen On Thursday 04 June 2009 23:42:59 Laurence Rowe wrote: > Without Foreign Keys or joins, I don't see how putting all tables > in the same domain buys you anything? > > Laurence > > On Jun 4, 12:27 am, enj <enjah...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The way Simpledb works you don't want to make each domain a > > table, you want to put all related tables in one domain. This way > > you can do relational queries on the set of objects. One thing > > that might help conceptualize it would be to set a "table" > > attribute for each item that contains what the table name would > > be called. That way you could quickly get a resultset of all the > > objects that should be in that table. One can do any kind of > > relational operation on the set of objects in the domain, so > > sqlalchemy functionality can be mapped to it. Since transactions > > aren't supported that functionality wont be supported, but one > > can still make useful applications. > > > > Ian > > > > On Jun 3, 6:00 pm, Laurence Rowe <laurencer...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > It would be interesting to see if this could be made to work. > > > The SimpleDB model is rather different from the relational > > > model, so it would only be useful if your application does not > > > use any advanced features - no joins etc, each 'domain' might > > > map to one big (albeit sparse) table. > > > > > > Laurence > > > > > > On Jun 3, 8:38 pm, enj <enjah...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > > > I am new to sqlalchemy and was introduced to it by a project > > > > (cjklib) that uses it. I want to migrate this project to > > > > Amazon SimpleDB and since it makes extensive use of > > > > sqlalchemy I thought the best course of action might be to > > > > make a SimpleDB dialect in sqlalchemy which could possibly > > > > benefit other projects trying to move to AWS. > > > > > > > > The purpose of my post is to see if there is any such effort > > > > out there or any other interest in this. Also I was wondering > > > > if there is any good docs/tutorials on implementing a > > > > Dialect. > > > > From my current understanding I plan to implement > > > > engine.defaulthttp://www.sqlalchemy.org/trac/browser/sqlalche > > > >my/trunk/lib/sqlalchem... which will use the boto library to > > > > interface with simpledbhttp://code.google.com/p/boto/ > > > > > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Ian Johnson > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 sqlalchemy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
