On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 07:24:45PM -0500, Michael Bayer wrote: > The argument against the tables being broken out in get_bind() is > partially one of implementation performance and partially one of > ambiguity, i.e. join of a to b, which table wins ? Neither argument > is completely compelling, though a decision on changing this > behavior is not likely to happen hastily. Also, we don't support > persisting one half of the object in one database and the other half > in another. Which again is something that is certainly possible > architecturally, just would require a lot of thought such that it > doesn't get in the way performancewise of the vast majority of cases > that don't want to do that.
Wow, sounds like I stumbled on a bit of a deep question here. Sounds
like a kinda cool idea, pushing parts of objects across databases.
Fortunately, I have no need for that functionality.
> On Jan 18, 2010, at 6:27 PM, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
> > engine = create_engine('sqlite:///:memory:', echo=True)
> > metadata.create_all(engine)
> > binds = { device_table : engine,
> > switch_table : engine }
> >
>
>
> Currently its looking at the mapped table of each object's class,
> which in this case is a join object, not either of the Table objects
> by themselves. That might not be ideal, but in any case its better
> if you bind classes and not tables to each engine. i.e.:
>
> binds = {
> DeviceBase:engine,
> Switch:engine
> }
Wow, talk about a simple fix! Works perfectly when I concoct things
like that. Michael, as usual, you are amazing.
Ross
--
Ross Vandegrift
r...@kallisti.us
"If the fight gets hot, the songs get hotter. If the going gets tough,
the songs get tougher."
--Woody Guthrie
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
