I have something like this in models.py
class ZipCode(models.Model):
zip = models.CharField(max_length=20)
cities = City.objects.filter(zip=self).distinct()
class City(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=50)
slug = models.CharField(max_length=50)
state = models.ForeignKey(State)
zip = models.ManyToManyField(ZipCode)
When I do this I get:
NameError: name 'City' is not defined
Is this because the order of declaration matters? And if so, how can I do this, because either way I arrange this, it looks like I'm going to get a NameError.
Thanks.
Apart from order issues, this is wrong:
cities = City.objects.filter(zip=self).distinct()
It is not inside a method, so "self" will also be undefined. It is executed only once, at class-creation time (i.e. when the module is first imported), so the attribute created would be a class attribute and have the same value for all instances. What you might be looking for is this:
#property
def cities(self):
return City.objects.filter(zip=self).distinct()
Because this is inside a method, which is not executed until it's accessed, ordering issues will no longer be a problem. As ozan points out, this is a duplication of what Django reverse relations already give you for free:
a_zip_code.city_set.all()
And you can use related_name to call it what you like:
zip = models.ManyToManyField(ZipCode, related_name='cities')
...
a_zip_code.cities.all()
So I don't think the ordering issue you originally asked about is even relevant to your situation. When it is, others have already pointed out using quoted strings in ForeignKey and ManyToManyField declarations to get around it.
When you have references to classes defined after, you can use this trick:
attribute = models.ForeignKey('ClassDefinedAfterThis')
Yes order does matter as others have noted.
Though, encountering this issue is almost always going to be an indication that you're doing something wrong.
In this case your declaration:
cities = City.objects.filter(zip=self).distinct()
... is both redundant and bad practice. You can find the cities related to a zip code by referring to that zip code's city_set in your views (ie not in your model!). So if zip is an instance of ZipCode, you would do:
cities = zip.city_set.all()
If you really want to call it 'cities' rather than 'city_set' you can use the related_name parameter in your m2m declaration.
I was once worried about order... because I thought my models below could only reference models above. But then realized that you can just do a
models.ForeignKey('appName.modelName')
and all was fine.
Yes, order does matter, but your example does not look right to me. I think you should just be using a foreign key for your many-to-one relationship:
cities = models.ForeignKey(City)
This has the details on many-to-one relationships with django models.
Edit:
It was pointed out to me in the comments that cities in Europe might have several cities in the same zip code. If you are looking for a many-to-many relationship here, you should use:
cities = models.ManyToManyField(City)
This is described in Django's documentation. The point is, this is either of these examples are much more clear than what is used in the example.
Order matters in Python. This thread may be relevant to your question. Also for your uses, you may want to use a unique foreign key in the ZIP code class.
Related
This is similar to other questions regarding complicated prefetches but seems to be slightly different. Here are some example models:
class Author(Model):
pass
class Book(Model):
authors = ManyToManyField(Author, through='BookAuthor')
class BookAuthor(Model):
book = ForeignKey(Book, ...)
author = ForeignKey(Author, ...)
class Event(Model):
book = ForeignKey(Book, ...)
author = ForeignKey(Author, ...)
In summary: a BookAuthor links a book to one of its authors, and an Event also concerns a book and one of its authors (the latter constraint is unimportant). One could design the relationships differently but it's too late for that now, and in my case, this in fact is part of migrating away from the current setup.
Now suppose I have a BookAuthor instance and want to find any events that relate to that combination of book and author. I can follow either the book or author relations on BookAuthor and their event_set reverse relationship, but neither gives me what I want and, if I have several BookAuthors it becomes a pain.
It seems that the way to get an entire queryset "annotated" onto a model instance is via prefetch_related but as far as I can tell there is no way, in the Prefetch object's queryset property, to refer to the root object's fields. I would like to do something like this:
BookAuthor.objects.filter(...).prefetch_related(
Prefetch(
'book__event_set',
queryset=Event.objects.filter(
author=OuterRef('author')
)
}
)
However, OuterRef only works in subqueries and this is not one. The answer to this question suggests I could use a subquery here but I don't understand how it could ever work: you have to put the subquery inside a query to work in the Prefetch, and the OuterRef refers to that object/DB row; there is no way to get back to the original, root object. If I translate the code there into my situation it is clear that the OuterRef is referring to the outer Event query, not the outer BookAuthor.
To make the question precise: what I want is O(1) queries which, for a queryset of BookAuthors annotate each instance - or one of its foreign keys - with a collection of the corresponding Events. Obviously one can get all the Events and glue everything together in python. I want to avoid this but if anyone has a particularly elegant way of doing that, it would also be useful to know.
I've got django 1.8.5 and Python 3.4.3, and trying to create a subquery that constrains my main data set - but the subquery itself (I think) needs a join in it. Or maybe there is a better way to do it.
Here's a trimmed down set of models:
class Lot(models.Model):
lot_id = models.CharField(max_length=200, unique=True)
class Lot_Country(models.Model):
lot = models.ForeignKey(Lot)
country = CountryField()
class Discrete(models.Model):
discrete_id = models.CharField(max_length=200, unique=True)
master_id = models.ForeignKey(Inventory_Master)
location = models.ForeignKey(Location)
lot = models.ForeignKey(Lot)
I am filtering on various attributes of Discrete (which is discrete supply) and I want to go "up" through Lot, over the Lot_Country, meaning "I only want to get rows from Discrete if the Lot associated with that row has an entry in Lot_Country for my appropriate country (let's say US.)
I've tried something like this:
oklots=list(Lot_Country.objects.filter(country='US'))
But, first of all that gives me the str back, which I don't really want (and changed it to be lot_id, but that's a hack.)
What's the best way to constrain Discrete through Lot and over to Lot_Country? In SQL I would just join in the subquery (or even in the main query - maybe that's what I need? I guess I don't know how to join up to a parent then down into that parent's other child...)
Thanks in advance for your help.
I'm not sure what you mean by "it gives me the str back"... Lot_Country.objects.filter(country='US') will return a queryset. Of course if you print it in your console, you will see a string.
I also think your models need refactoring. The way you have currently defined it, you can associate multiple Lot_Countrys with one Lot, and a country can only be associated with one lot.
If I understand your general model correctly that isn't what you want - you want to associate multiple Lots with one Lot_Country. To do that you need to reverse your foreign key relationship (i.e., put it inside the Lot).
Then, for fetching all the Discrete lots that are in a given country, you would do:
discretes_in_us = Discrete.objects.filter(lot__lot_country__country='US')
Which will give you a queryset of all Discretes whose Lot is in the US.
So first off, I want to clarify that I am trying to make One-To-Many relationships, not Many-to-One. I already understand how ForeignKeys work.
For the sake of the discussion, I've simplified my models; they're much more field-rich than this in the real implementation.
I have a model, called a ColumnDefinition:
class ColumnDefinition(Model):
column_name = CharField(max_length=32)
column_type = PositiveSmallIntegerField()
column_size = PositiveSmallIntegerField(null=True, blank=True)
I think have a registry. Each registry has a separate set of columns for it's input and output definition. I've put the theoretical "OneToManyField" in there to demonstrate what I'm trying to do.
class Registry(Model):
input_dictionary = OneToManyField(ColumnDefinition)
output_dictionary = OneToManyField(ColumnDefinition)
created_date = DateTimeField(auto_now_add=True, editable=False)
A ColumnDefinition is only ever related to one Registry ever. So it's not a Many to Many relationship. If I put a ForeignKey on the ColumnDefinition instead to create a reverse relationship, it can only create a single reverse, whereas I need both an input and output reverse.
I don't want to have to do anything kludgey like adding a "column_registry_type" field onto ColumnDefinition if I can get around it.
Does anyone have any good ideas on how to solve this problem?
Thanks!
You can add two ForeignKeys on ColumnDefinition, one for input and one for output, and give them separate related_names:
class ColumnDefinition(Model):
...
input_registry = models.ForeignKey(Registry, related_name='input_columns')
output_registry = models.ForeignKey(Registry, related_name='output_columns')
You can then access the set of columns like registry.input_columns.
You can and should define two different ForeignKey fields on ColumnDefinition. Just make sure to specify a related_name value for at least one of them.
https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/ref/models/fields/#django.db.models.ForeignKey.related_name
I have two models
class Subject(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=100,choices=COURSE_CHOICES)
created = models.DateTimeField('created', auto_now_add=True)
modified = models.DateTimeField('modified', auto_now=True)
syllabus = models.FileField(upload_to='syllabus')
def __unicode__(self):
return self.name
and
class Pastquestion(models.Model):
subject=models.ForeignKey(Subject)
year =models.PositiveIntegerField()
questions = models.FileField(upload_to='pastquestions')
def __unicode__(self):
return str(self.year)
Each Subject can have one or more past questions but a past question can have only one subject. I want to get a subject, and get its related past questions of a particular year. I was thinking of fetching a subject and getting its related past question.
Currently am implementing my code such that I rather get the past question whose subject and year correspond to any specified subject like
this_subject=Subject.objects.get(name=the_subject)
thepastQ=Pastquestion.objects.get(year=2000,subject=this_subject)
I was thinking there is a better way to do this. Or is this already a better way? Please Do tell ?
I think what you want is the related_name property of the ForeignKey field. This creates a link back to the Subject object and provides a manager you can use to query the set.
So to use this functionality, change the foreignkey line to:
subject=models.ForeignKey(Subject, related_name='questions')
Then with an instance of Subject we'll call subj, you can:
subj.questions.filter(year=2000)
I don't think this performs much differently to the technique you have used. Roughly speaking, SQL performance boils down a) whether there's an index and b) how many queries you're issuing. So you need to think about both. One way to find out what SQL your model usage is generating is to use SqlLogMiddleware - and alternatively play with the options in How to show the SQL Django is running It can be tempting when you get going to start issuing queries across relationships - e.g. q = Question.objects.get(year=2000, subject__name=SUBJ_MATHS) but unless you keep a close eye on these types of queries, you can and will kill your app's performance, badly.
Django's query syntax allows you to 'reach into' related objects.
past_questions = Pastquestion.objects.filter(year=2000, subject__name=subject_name)
I have the following Django model:
class Make:
name = models.CharField(max_length=200)
class MakeContent:
make = models.ForeignKey(Make)
published = models.BooleanField()
I'd like to know if it's possible (without writing SQL directly) for me to generate a queryset that contains all Makes and each one's related MakeContents where published = True.
Yes, I think you want
make = Make.objects.get(pk=1)
make.make_content_set.filter(published=True)
or maybe
make_ids = MakeContent.objects.filter(published=True).values_list('make_id', flat=True)
makes = Make.objects.filter(id__in=make_ids)
I know this is very old question, but I am answering. As I think my answer can help others. I have changed the model a bit as follows. I have used Django 1.8.
class Make(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=200)
class MakeContent(models.Model):
make = models.ForeignKey(Make, related_name='makecontent')
published = models.BooleanField()
I have used the following queryset.
Make.objects.filter(makecontent__published=True)
You should use distinct() to avoid the duplicate result.
Make.objects.filter(makecontent__published=True).distinct()
I hope it will help.
Django doesn't support the select_related() method for reverse foreign key lookups, so the best you can do without leaving Python is two database queries. The first is to grab all the Makes that contain MakeContents where published = True, and the second is to grab all the MakeContents where published = True. You then have to loop through and arrange the data how you want it. Here's a good article about how to do this:
http://blog.roseman.org.uk/2010/01/11/django-patterns-part-2-efficient-reverse-lookups/
Let me translate Spike's worded answer into codes for future viewers. Please note that each 'Make' can have zero to multiple 'MakeContent'
If the asker means to query 'Make' with AT LEAST ONE 'MakeContent' whose published=True, then Jason Christa's 2nd snippet answers the question.
The snippet is equivalent to
makes = Make.objects.select_related().filter(makecontent__published=True).distinct()
But if the asker means to query 'Make' with ALL 'MakeContent' whose published=True, then following the 'makes' above,
import operator
make_ids = [m.id for m in makes if
reduce(operator.and_, [c.published for c in m.makecontent_set.all()] )
]
makes_query = Make.objects.filter(id__in=make_ids)
contains the desired query.
One more time, it is not clear what was the question, but if it was desired that all related MakeContent objects must have been published this can work:
Make.objects.exclude(MakeContent_set__published=False)
And if at least one of them (as it was in other answers):
Make.objects.filter(MakeContent_set__published=True)