Fair enough, thanks. I didn't realize it was such a complex task; I figured it was just a matter of passing an argument to distinct() or something equally easy. Speed isn't a huge concern, so I suppose I could get around this by storing the item numbers I find and then checking that the row I'm about to use doesn't have a number in that set. Still, there could be hundreds of thousands of items, so that might not be the best plan. Anyway, I'll look into it more.
On 3/9/16, Jonathan Vanasco <jonat...@findmeon.com> wrote: > It would probably be best for you to figure out the correct raw sql you > want, then convert it to SqlAlchemy. > > Postgres is the only DB I know of that offers "DISTINCT ON (columns)" -- > and even that works a bit awkward. > > The query that you want to do isn't actually simple -- there are concerns > with how to handle duplicate rows (based on the distinct field). Often > people will use "GROUP BY" + "ORDER BY" along with distincts, subselects > and misc database functions. > > If I were in your place, I would read through some DB tutorials and > StackOverflow questions on how people are dealing with similar problems. > That should help you learn. > > -- > 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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
