I'd be inclined to agree with Anssi that we could do something like LIMIT 21 to just remove the issues with large numbers. I have found it quite helpful to have the exact number when it's small - especially when debugging issues with strange joins etc.
On 4 June 2013 15:02, Jacob Kaplan-Moss <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Anssi Kääriäinen > <[email protected]> wrote: > > As for .get() - I don't find the number of duplicates in the error > > message that useful. > > Yeah, I'd agree with that. It's another one of those things that goes > WAY back into the misty reaches of Django's history, but I don't think > there's a particularly good reason it's stuck around. I think a LIMIT > 2 and an error message like "… returned more than one" would be fine. > If people are particularly interested, they could re-run the query > with a .count() instead of a .get(). > > Jacob > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Django developers" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
