well if you're working with the RoutingSession example you can manufacture get_bind() and using_bind() to work in any way you want. If you have the engine, as the example shows, session.using_bind(some_bind).query(...)
http://techspot.zzzeek.org/2012/01/11/django-style-database-routers-in-sqlalchemy/ On May 18, 2014, at 3:28 PM, Richard Gerd Kuesters <rich...@humantech.com.br> wrote: > yeah, well, i was using implicit for little things and explicit for the > bigger ones, but it seems that even small things are error prone :) i was > just wondering if there's a "faster" way to do it, even explicit, so i can > get a class (whatever it is) to query against an engine i know (so there's > the key to make things work). if I have a metadata bind to some engine, is > there a quick (and performatic) way to know it? > > > > Em 2014-05-18 16:21, Michael Bayer escreveu: > >> >> On May 18, 2014, at 12:10 PM, Richard Gerd Kuesters >> <rich...@humantech.com.br> wrote: >> >>> well, this part is still working, as long as i remember. my biggest problem >>> now - and has been for the last couple of years - is to manage this mayhem >>> of classes and engines AND sessions, because everyone "wants to go online" >>> with their data. i'm writting and rewriting a session manager that can >>> simplify my life for a looooong time, i got close to get things done with >>> your RoutingSession vertical example, but it doesn't work very well with >>> functions, session.query(...).count() or .exists() and so on. i'm writing >>> code as hell and still far from an acceptable, performatic session "router" >>> (?) for a class that can come from anywhere, for one or more specific >>> engines, without grind string ids everywhere. >>> >>> well, i think my problem have a lot of weaknesses to discuss ... but, one >>> at a time. >>> >>> for now, any tips on enterprise multi-everything session routing? :) >>> >>> >> >> >> you're trying to route to different sessions based on the intricacies of >> what's inside a SELECT statement? See I just would never do that, it's very >> complicated and error prone. I'd have an explicit node name sent in right >> at the top. Explicit is better than implicit. >> >> > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sqlalchemy" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to sqlalchemy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sqlalchemy" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sqlalchemy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
