I've been using the get_or_create method with MongoEngine in a Django app. Today, I noticed there were a few duplicate entries. I came across this in the MongoEngine API Reference for get_or_create:
This requires two separate operations and therefore a race condition exists. Because there are no transactions in mongoDB other approaches should be investigated, to ensure you don’t accidentally duplicate data when using this method. This is now scheduled to be removed before 1.0
Should I be using something like this?:
from models import Post
post = Post(name='hello')
try:
Posts.objects.get(name=post.name)
print "exists"
except:
post.save()
print "saved"
Will that solve my problem?
Is there a better way?
To perform an upsert use the following syntax:
Posts.objects(name="hello").update(set__X=Y, upsert=True)
That will add a post with the name "hello" and where X = Y if it doesn't already exist, otherwise it will update an existing post just setting X = Y.
If you need pass a dictionery, can do this:
post = Post.objects(name="hello").first() or Post(name="hello")
then you can update with something like this:
# data = dictionary_with_data
for field, value in data.items():
post[field] = value
post.save()
Related
Sorry about the confusing title, but I don't know how to describe it better.
I need to run a model-function on the object I am editing using PUT in Django-Rest-Framework, which uses some of the new data from the PUT to calculate some new values it should save in the same model.
Example:
An item with {'amount': 2, 'price': 0, 'total': 0} is already stored in the database.
I am then updating price to 1 using a normal PUT request using django-rest-framework.
The model have a helperfunction called update_total() which I need to call to update the total field in the database (to, in this case 2 (2*1)).
The item is updated in the database, but the response returned from django-rest-framework is still showing total=0. After getting the object on new, total will be 2 as expected.
I need the response to be 2 in the response from the PUT, not after a regrab of the object. But how?
I have tried several things (which all doesn’t work):
Updating attrs in a validator to the new value.
Using post_save() in ListCreateAPIView to update the data.
Using pre_save() in ListCreateAPIView
Updating instance in restore_object() (even though it isn't for this purpose)
Does this look like a bug? Or is there another trick?
I kinda found a solution, but it feels somewhat dirty..
In my serializers restore_object I put code like this:
new_values = instance.update_counters()
for k, v in new_values.items():
self.data[k] = v
and in my models update_counters() function, I am returning a dict of what I changed..
I'm following the official Django Tutorial and confused about this part:
Sometimes they create a model data without .create() like:
Poll(pub_date= timezone.now() )
and sometimes they use .create() like:
Poll.objects.create(pub_date= timezone.now() )
From what I run, both returns the same result. So is there any difference?
Thanks
The latter saves it in the table (performs an implicit .save()). The former does not.
I'm trying to render a form with a combo that shows related entities. Therefore I'm using a ModelChoiceField.
This approach works well, until I needed to limit which entities to show. If I use a simple query expression it also works well, but things break if I use a raw SQL query.
So my code that works, sets the queryset to a filter expression.
class ReservationForm(forms.Form):
location_time_slot = ModelChoiceField(queryset=LocationTimeSlot.objects.all(), empty_label="Select your prefered time")
def __init__(self,*args,**kwargs):
city_id = kwargs.pop("city_id") # client is the parameter passed from views.py
super(ReservationForm, self).__init__(*args,**kwargs)
# TODO: move this to a manager
self.fields['location_time_slot'].queryset = LocationTimeSlot.objects.filter(city__id = city_id )
BUT, if I change that to a raw query I start having problems. Code that does not work:
class ReservationForm(forms.Form):
location_time_slot = ModelChoiceField(queryset=LocationTimeSlot.objects.all(), empty_label="Select your prefered time")
def __init__(self,*args,**kwargs):
city_id = kwargs.pop("city_id") # client is the parameter passed from views.py
super(ReservationForm, self).__init__(*args,**kwargs)
# TODO: move this to a manager
query = """SELECT ts.id, ts.datetime_to, ts.datetime_from, ts.available_reserves, l.name, l.'order'
FROM reservations_locationtimeslot AS ts
INNER JOIN reservations_location AS l ON l.id = ts.location_id
WHERE l.city_id = %s
AND ts.available_reserves > 0
AND ts.datetime_from > datetime() """
time_slots = LocationTimeSlot.objects.raw(query, [city_id])
self.fields['location_time_slot'].queryset = time_slots
The first error I get when trying to render the widget is: 'RawQuerySet' object has no attribute 'all'
I could solve that one thanks to one of the commets in enter link description here, by doing:
time_slots.all = time_slots.__iter__ # Dummy fix to allow default form rendering with raw SQL
But now I'm getting something similar when posting the form:
'RawQuerySet' object has no attribute 'get'
Is there a proper way to prepare a RawQuerySet to be used by ModelChoiceField?
Thanks!
Are you sure you actually need a raw query there? Just looking at that query, I can't see any reason you can't just do it with filter(location__city=city_id, available_reserves__gte=0, datetime_from__gt=datetime.datetime.now()).
Raw query sets are missing a number of methods that are defined on conventional query sets, so just dropping them in place isn't likely to work without writing your own definitions for all those methods.
I temporarily fixed the problem adding the missing methods.
The way I'm currently using the ModelChoiceField I only needed to add the all() and get() methods, but in different scenarios you might need to add some other methods as well. Also this is not a perfect solution because:
1) Defining the get method this way migth produce incorrect results. I think the get() method is used to validate that the selected option is within the options returned by all(). The way I temporarily implemented it only validates that the id exists in the table.
2) I guess the get method is less performant specified this way.
If anyone can think of a better solution, please let me know.
So my temporary solution:
class LocationTimeSlotManager(models.Manager):
def availableSlots(self, city_id):
query = """SELECT ts.id, ts.datetime_to, ts.datetime_from, ts.available_reserves, l.name, l.'order'
FROM reservations_locationtimeslot AS ts
.....
.....
MORE SQL """
time_slots = LocationTimeSlot.objects.raw(query, [city_id])
# Dummy fix to allow default form rendering with raw SQL
time_slots.all = time_slots.__iter__
time_slots.get = LocationTimeSlot.objects.get
return time_slots
I've been using the built-in Django comments system which has been working great. On a particular page I need to list the latest X comments which I've just been fetching with:
latest_comments =
Comment.objects.filter(is_public=True, is_removed=False)
.order_by('submit_date').reverse()[:5]
However I've now introduced a Boolean field 'published' into the parent object of the comments, and I want to include that in the query above. I've tried using the content_type and object_pk fields but I'm not really getting anywhere. Normally you'd do something like:
Comment.objects.filter(blogPost__published=True)
But as it is not stored like that I am not sure how to proceed.
posts_ids = BlogPost.objects.filter(is_published=True).values_list('id', flat=True) #return [3,4,5,...]
ctype = ContentType.objects.get_for_model(BlogPost)
latest_comments = Comment.objects.filter(is_public=True, is_removed=False, content_type=ctype, content_object__in=posts_ids).order_by('-submit_date')[:5]
Comments use GenericForeignKey to store the relation to parent object. Because of the way generic relations work related lookups using __<field> syntax are not supported.
You can accomplish the desired behaviour using the 'in' lookup, however it'll require lot of comparisons when there'll be a lot of BlogPosts.
ids = BlogPost.objects.filter(published=True).values_list('id', flat=True) # Get list of ids, you would probably want to limit number of items returned here
content_type = ContentType.objects.get_for_model(BlogPost) # Becasue we filter only comments for BlogPost
latest_comments = Comment.objects.filter(content_type=content_type, object_pk__in=ids, is_public=True, is_removed=False, ).order_by('submit_date').reverse()[:5]
See the Comment model doc for the description of all fields.
You just cannot do that in one query. Comments use GenericForeignKey. Documentation says:
Due to the way GenericForeignKey is implemented, you cannot use such
fields directly with filters (filter() and exclude(), for example) via
the database API.
I have a lot of objects to save in database, and so I want to create Model instances with that.
With django, I can create all the models instances, with MyModel(data), and then I want to save them all.
Currently, I have something like that:
for item in items:
object = MyModel(name=item.name)
object.save()
I'm wondering if I can save a list of objects directly, eg:
objects = []
for item in items:
objects.append(MyModel(name=item.name))
objects.save_all()
How to save all the objects in one transaction?
as of the django development, there exists bulk_create as an object manager method which takes as input an array of objects created using the class constructor. check out django docs
Use bulk_create() method. It's standard in Django now.
Example:
Entry.objects.bulk_create([
Entry(headline="Django 1.0 Released"),
Entry(headline="Django 1.1 Announced"),
Entry(headline="Breaking: Django is awesome")
])
worked for me to use manual transaction handling for the loop(postgres 9.1):
from django.db import transaction
with transaction.atomic():
for item in items:
MyModel.objects.create(name=item.name)
in fact it's not the same, as 'native' database bulk insert, but it allows you to avoid/descrease transport/orms operations/sql query analyse costs
name = request.data.get('name')
period = request.data.get('period')
email = request.data.get('email')
prefix = request.data.get('prefix')
bulk_number = int(request.data.get('bulk_number'))
bulk_list = list()
for _ in range(bulk_number):
code = code_prefix + uuid.uuid4().hex.upper()
bulk_list.append(
DjangoModel(name=name, code=code, period=period, user=email))
bulk_msj = DjangoModel.objects.bulk_create(bulk_list)
Here is how to bulk-create entities from column-separated file, leaving aside all unquoting and un-escaping routines:
SomeModel(Model):
#classmethod
def from_file(model, file_obj, headers, delimiter):
model.objects.bulk_create([
model(**dict(zip(headers, line.split(delimiter))))
for line in file_obj],
batch_size=None)
Using create will cause one query per new item. If you want to reduce the number of INSERT queries, you'll need to use something else.
I've had some success using the Bulk Insert snippet, even though the snippet is quite old.
Perhaps there are some changes required to get it working again.
http://djangosnippets.org/snippets/446/
Check out this blog post on the bulkops module.
On my django 1.3 app, I have experienced significant speedup.
bulk_create() method is one of the ways to insert multiple records in the database table. How the bulk_create()
**
Event.objects.bulk_create([
Event(event_name="Event WF -001",event_type = "sensor_value"),
Entry(event_name="Event WT -002", event_type = "geozone"),
Entry(event_name="Event WD -001", event_type = "outage") ])
**
for a single line implementation, you can use a lambda expression in a map
map(lambda x:MyModel.objects.get_or_create(name=x), items)
Here, lambda matches each item in items list to x and create a Database record if necessary.
Lambda Documentation
The easiest way is to use the create Manager method, which creates and saves the object in a single step.
for item in items:
MyModel.objects.create(name=item.name)