On Apr 23, 6:54 pm, "Daniel Sokolowski" <daniel.sokolow...@klinsight.com> wrote: > +1 > > I use SQlite3 on lower traffic production sites due to it's ease of install > and deployment. Even though I only once I reached this 1000 variable limit I > would like to see some django work around.
I thought a little more about this, and I find it unlikely that the qs.filter() issue will ever be solved. The idea presented upthread might work, but it will be a mess to implement. It adds some serious complexity to the query generation: temp table creation, insertion into the temp table, the where clause generation, and finally you need to clean up the temp table. All this to work around a limitation in a single database. An issue you can work around by recompiling SQLite. Or you could just use a different database. The implementation would need to be extremely good to have any chance to get in. The work needed seems huge compared to what is gained. So, as said upthread: there is only so much Django can hide about the underlying database. The 1000 parameters limit for single query seems to be one of those issues. If there is some easy trick Django will use that. But the temp table workaround seems just too messy. Still, I would be happy to be proven wrong here. - Anssi -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en.
