#25590 closed New feature (duplicate)
Allow fields to set join class
Reported by: | Anssi Kääriäinen | Owned by: | nobody |
---|---|---|---|
Component: | Database layer (models, ORM) | Version: | dev |
Severity: | Normal | Keywords: | |
Cc: | Tyson Clugg | Triage Stage: | Accepted |
Has patch: | no | Needs documentation: | no |
Needs tests: | no | Patch needs improvement: | no |
Easy pickings: | no | UI/UX: | no |
Description
If fields can set the class generating SQL for the join condition, that would allow a way to inject complex raw SQL into ORM queries. The class generating the join condition is currently hardcoded to django.db.models.sql.datastructures.Join.
My use case is to do a join, where for each main object I need to fetch the currently active, or the next active related object. Think of hotel room reservations, where you want to have a list that shows the current occupant of the room. But with a twist where if there is no current occupant, then the next occupant of the room will be shown.
I can do this manually using PostgreSQL with the following query:
select * from room left join lateral ( select * from room_reservation where room.room_id = room_reservation.room_id and from_date = ( select min(from_date) from room_reservation inner_rr where inner_rr.room_id = room_reservation.room_id and (inner_rr.to_date > now() or inner_rr.to_date is null) ) ) as current_or_next_room_reservation on true;
Now, 1) I need a complex query inside the join, and 2) I need a lateral join. Both of these are currently out of reach for Django.
If the join field could return a different class to be used instead of the Django's currently hard coded Join class, then 3rd party field implementations could generate exactly the SQL I want.
I believe the changes needed for custom join classes to be actually fairly minor. I don't believe we want to make this public API, so we'd add just a couple of minor changes to internals.
Change History (5)
comment:1 by , 9 years ago
Triage Stage: | Unreviewed → Accepted |
---|
comment:2 by , 9 years ago
comment:3 by , 9 years ago
The idea is to use this for virtualr elation fields. Such fields are already possible (see django-reverse-unique for example).
comment:4 by , 7 years ago
Cc: | added |
---|
comment:5 by , 7 years ago
Resolution: | → duplicate |
---|---|
Status: | new → closed |
Closing in favour of: https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/29262
Can undo the close if you think this should remain open.
You want a lateral join on this column for the one query, but that doesn't mean it necessarily applies to all queries containing joins on this column, does it? Wouldn't this change lead to hacks like duplicating your model with
managed=False
to change that one field so you can use both join types in your application?