On 12/1/06 11:40 AM, Rob Hudson wrote: >> 4 - If you search the archives (user and developer), you will find several >> discussions on aggregate functions. group_by() and having() (or >> pre-magic-removal analogs thereof) have been rejected previously on the >> grounds that the Django ORM is not intended to be 'SQL with a different >> syntax'. Any proposal for group_by/having will have to be logical from a >> Django ORM point of view, and not presuppose/require knowledge of how SQL >> formulates queries.
Indeed, and that's been the biggest thing keeping aggregates/grouping from Django's ORM. I could really use 'em myself, but I'm not going to just kludge something on that doesn't fit with Django's overall philosophy. Quite a lot of the problem in cases like this is syntax; if someone comes up with a clean, understandable syntax for doing aggregates -- in a way that makes sense even to those who don't really know SQL -- I'll be totally behind it. And at that point, FYI, you'll want to take the discussion to django-dev where it will get a little more attention. Jacob --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
