On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 6:42 PM, kk <krm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > Tahnks to you and Mike for detaild insight, My questions follow in-line.On > Friday 07 August 2015 08:48 PM, Claudio Freire wrote: >> >> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:05 PM, kk <krm...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Friday 07 August 2015 03:03 PM, Ladislav Lenart wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello. >>>> >>>> ORM is certainly slower. How much depends A LOT on your workload. For >>>> example >>>> bulk operations with ORM are an order of magnitude slower than raw SQL. >>>> On >>>> the >>>> other hand, SQLAlchemy Core let's you write generative SQL queries >>>> without >>>> ORM features which are as performant as raw SQL. > > > I am going to be mostly with Postgresql for now so I don't wish database > independent queries. Perhaps we will shift to NoSql in near future (more on > that in some time ). > So if I were to write core queries then I could as well do directly with > psycopg2. What advantage I will then get by using SQLAlchemy?
For one benefit, building complex queries programatically is much easier with Core than with SQL strings, and less error-prone. -- 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.
