Opened 14 years ago

Closed 8 years ago

#14286 closed New feature (fixed)

Support for BigAutoField

Reported by: hongrich Owned by: mmcnickle
Component: Database layer (models, ORM) Version: dev
Severity: Normal Keywords:
Cc: Michael, Sergey Kolosov, ethan.jucovy@…, ludo@…, stodge@…, cmawebsite@…, Nicola, samir, mike@…, marti@… Triage Stage: Accepted
Has patch: yes Needs documentation: no
Needs tests: no Patch needs improvement: no
Easy pickings: no UI/UX: no

Description

1.2 added BigIntegerField, but there is still no support for using bigint as auto increment primary key. Could there be an official version of BigAutoField?

Reference of various attempts over the years:

http://djangosnippets.org/snippets/1244/

http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/9625

http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/13774

Attachments (2)

14286-Add_BigAutoField.diff (7.7 KB ) - added by mmcnickle 13 years ago.
Adds BigAutoField as a new field type, with documentation.
bigauto.diff (9.2 KB ) - added by jamercee 11 years ago.
BigAutoField patch file.

Download all attachments as: .zip

Change History (42)

comment:1 by maaatt, 13 years ago

In the meantime, it suffices to use a standard AutoField and hack the database like so:

In the table in question, alter the field like so: ALTER TABLE [table_name] ALTER COLUMN [field_name] [data_type], where [data_type] is one of the following:

MySQL: bigint AUTO_INCREMENT
Oracle: NUMBER(19)
PostgreSQL: bigserial
SQLite: integer

For every foreign key pointing to your field, you will also need to alter the column, but with these data types:

MySQL: bigint
Oracle: NUMBER(19)
PostgreSQL: bigint
SQLite: integer

This is a pain, but you only need to do it when creating tables, once. On the other hand, users shouldn't have to hack the database for such a simple feature, in my opinion. It would be super-cool if 1.3 included a fully-functional BigAutoField.

comment:2 by Russell Keith-Magee, 13 years ago

Triage Stage: UnreviewedAccepted

Of course, this can be easily handled as an external field definition, but given that BigInteger is in trunk, I suppose it makes sense for there to be a BigAutoField too.

comment:3 by mmcnickle, 13 years ago

Owner: changed from nobody to mmcnickle

by mmcnickle, 13 years ago

Attachment: 14286-Add_BigAutoField.diff added

Adds BigAutoField as a new field type, with documentation.

comment:4 by mmcnickle, 13 years ago

Has patch: set
Needs tests: set
Version: 1.2SVN

comment:5 by Julien Phalip, 13 years ago

Severity: Normal
Type: New feature

comment:6 by Robin Jarry, 12 years ago

Easy pickings: unset
UI/UX: unset

Hello guys,

Since 1.4 is to be released soon™, could this feature be integrated into it? I looked in the trunk and did not find it. It shouldn't have much impact on anything.

I could perform the integration of the patch proposed by mmcnickle, but since I'm new here, I'm not sure if I can :)

Thanks!!! Django is a wonderfull piece of software o/

comment:7 by Michael, 12 years ago

Cc: Michael added

comment:8 by Sergey Kolosov, 12 years ago

Cc: Sergey Kolosov added

comment:9 by Anssi Kääriäinen, 12 years ago

#18201 asked for tinyint and smallint based AutoFields. If bigint based fields is added in this ticket, it would make sense to add smallint based AutoField, too.

comment:10 by Ethan Jucovy, 11 years ago

Cc: ethan.jucovy@… added

comment:11 by Jacob, 11 years ago

#20001 has an alternate patch.

by jamercee, 11 years ago

Attachment: bigauto.diff added

BigAutoField patch file.

comment:12 by jamercee, 11 years ago

This week we upgraded to from 1.3 -> 1.5, and discovered BigAutoField was not yet included in Django. I know this issue has been referenced in a number of tickets over the years. In Django 1.3, we went with the mmcnickle approach discussed in this ticket, but found this difficult to merge into 1.5.

This time, we went with the approach approach suggested by pzinovkin in ticket 56 (https://code.djangoproject.com/attachment/ticket/56/56_bigint.diff). It required tweaking to get it to work cleanly with 1.5

Attached are patches derived from a git clone this morning.

comment:13 by clintonb, 11 years ago

What needs to be done to move this patch to completion and integration?

comment:14 by anonymous, 11 years ago

Someone from a big corporation that uses django to request it

comment:15 by Aymeric Augustin, 11 years ago

Judging by the ticket's flage, tests need to be written (at least).

Version 0, edited 11 years ago by Aymeric Augustin (next)

comment:16 by Ludovico Magnocavallo, 11 years ago

Cc: ludo@… added

in reply to:  12 comment:17 by xsanch@…, 10 years ago

Replying to jamercee:

This week we upgraded to from 1.3 -> 1.5, and discovered BigAutoField was not yet included in Django. I know this issue has been referenced in a number of tickets over the years. In Django 1.3, we went with the mmcnickle approach discussed in this ticket, but found this difficult to merge into 1.5.

This time, we went with the approach approach suggested by pzinovkin in ticket 56 (https://code.djangoproject.com/attachment/ticket/56/56_bigint.diff). It required tweaking to get it to work cleanly with 1.5

Attached are patches derived from a git clone this morning.

I tried to apply the patch to my 1.5 Django release:

patch -p1 --dry-run -r /var/tmp/reject.txt < bigauto.diff
patching file django/db/backends/init.py
Hunk #1 succeeded at 901 (offset -154 lines).
patching file django/db/backends/mysql/creation.py
Hunk #1 FAILED at 7.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file /var/tmp/reject.txt
patching file django/db/backends/oracle/creation.py
Hunk #1 FAILED at 17.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file /var/tmp/reject.txt
patching file django/db/backends/postgresql_psycopg2/creation.py
Hunk #1 FAILED at 11.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file /var/tmp/reject.txt
patching file django/db/backends/sqlite3/base.py
Hunk #1 succeeded at 214 (offset -34 lines).
patching file django/db/backends/sqlite3/creation.py
Hunk #1 FAILED at 9.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file /var/tmp/reject.txt
patching file django/db/models/fields/init.py
Hunk #1 succeeded at 213 (offset -2 lines).
Hunk #2 succeeded at 240 (offset -2 lines).
Hunk #3 succeeded at 531 (offset -8 lines).
Hunk #4 succeeded at 1158 (offset -8 lines).
Hunk #5 succeeded at 1174 (offset -8 lines).
patching file django/db/models/fields/related.py
Hunk #1 succeeded at 1092 (offset -21 lines).
patching file docs/ref/models/fields.txt
Hunk #1 FAILED at 331.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file /var/tmp/reject.txt

The version of Django is 1.5.0. Could someone tell me what am I doing wrong ?

Thanks,

Jorge

comment:18 by Mike, 9 years ago

Has there been any progress on this ticket? Is there a chance it will be included (and back-ported to 1.6)?

comment:19 by Mike, 9 years ago

Cc: stodge@… added

comment:20 by Tim Graham, 9 years ago

I don't see any progress. It would be included in Django 1.8 at the earliest. You can read about our support versions policy.

comment:21 by Tadas Dailyda, 9 years ago

I have patches for 1.6 and 1.7 ATM in my django fork:
Commit (patch) for 1.6: https://github.com/skirsdeda/django/commit/089fc7f165fb6cb7eb851b81a44660a986797946
Commit (patch) for 1.7: https://github.com/skirsdeda/django/commit/b0a567cc3fa7083ddcdca4f291b1e6d7fa85f6c7

It seems db backend implementation is changed a bit in master branch, so more work is needed. But I'm planning to do this sometime soonish.

comment:22 by David Cramer, 9 years ago

What needs done to make this happen?

It's pretty painful to modify these kinds of things currently and Sentry hit BIGINT quite a while back.

I'm attempting to hack this up but these are pretty deep internals and while I haven't given up I've yet to make things work.

Specifically the primary issue right now that we've hit with just doing it externally is with foreign keys:

https://github.com/getsentry/sentry/issues/1354#issuecomment-68393116

comment:23 by David Cramer, 9 years ago

In fact, I'd propose a new API be added to keys: "get_related_db_type" (or something along these lines)

I'm implement a custom ForeignKey locally that will do this, and allow BigAutoField to return BigIntegerField().db_type(connection)

in reply to:  23 comment:25 by hhowe29, 9 years ago

Replying to dcramer:

In fact, I'd propose a new API be added to keys: "get_related_db_type" (or something along these lines)

Yes please. Currently, ForeignKey.db_type is too tightly coupled to AutoField and IntegerField. There should be a new method that ForeignKey can call to ask the related field what SQL should be used to create a foreign key to that type. BitAutoField would return 'bigint'. AutoField would return a regular int. Most fields would simply defer to what db_type already returns.

Someone has already submitted this: #13774

comment:26 by Collin Anderson, 9 years ago

Cc: cmawebsite@… added

comment:27 by Nicola, 9 years ago

Cc: Nicola added

comment:29 by samir, 9 years ago

Cc: samir added

comment:30 by Mike Fogel, 9 years ago

Cc: mike@… added

comment:31 by Marti Raudsepp, 9 years ago

Cc: marti@… added

comment:32 by Alexander, 9 years ago

Needs tests: unset

comment:33 by Alexander, 9 years ago

Triage Stage: AcceptedUnreviewed

comment:34 by Alexander, 9 years ago

Triage Stage: UnreviewedReady for checkin

comment:35 by Claude Paroz, 9 years ago

Triage Stage: Ready for checkinAccepted

Sorry, but you are not supposed to mark your own patches as RFC.

comment:36 by Tim Graham, 9 years ago

Patch needs improvement: set

Added some comments for improvement on the pull request.

comment:37 by Alexander, 8 years ago

Patch needs improvement: unset

comment:38 by Tim Graham, 8 years ago

Patch needs improvement: set

I left another round of mostly cosmetic comments, looks like it's almost there.

comment:39 by Alexander, 8 years ago

Patch needs improvement: unset

Rebased on #13774.

Last edited 8 years ago by Alexander (previous) (diff)

comment:40 by Tim Graham <timograham@…>, 8 years ago

Resolution: fixed
Status: newclosed

In 2a7ce346:

Fixed #14286 -- Added models.BigAutoField.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.
Back to Top