Opened 11 years ago
Last modified 12 months ago
#21604 assigned New feature
Embed raw queries as subqueries when used with an __in filter
Reported by: | Owned by: | William | |
---|---|---|---|
Component: | Database layer (models, ORM) | Version: | dev |
Severity: | Normal | Keywords: | |
Cc: | Aivars Kalvāns | Triage Stage: | Accepted |
Has patch: | yes | Needs documentation: | no |
Needs tests: | no | Patch needs improvement: | yes |
Easy pickings: | no | UI/UX: | no |
Description
As per this discussion on django-developers: https://groups.google.com/d/topic/django-developers/cWrcEHZaMTg/discussion
In brief: At the moment, when passing a RawQuerySet
to an __in
filter, the raw query is evaluated and the result passed as a parameter to the filter's SQL. It would be nice to have the option of using the raw SQL in a subquery instead, for performance reasons.
I've had an initial shot at implementing this feature and would love any feedback: https://github.com/AlexHill/django/compare/master...raw_subqueries
I've taken the approach of wrapping the raw query in another SELECT
when it's used as a subquery, selecting the required columns (either the primary key or others as specified in only()
- see below) and adding an IS NOT NULL
clause.
Responding to Anssi's feedback on django-developers about this approach:
- It should not be assumed that the primary key is the field needed in the inner query. We do have foreign keys to other fields, and one can use this approach without foreign keys at all.
We discussed making a ValuesRawQuerySet
that could be used like this: Book.objects.filter(subject_code__in=subject_raw_query.values('code'))
But that feels a bit too convoluted - as Anssi pointed out, it's a verbose way of writing raw SQL and getting plain data back, which Django already has.
What I think makes sense, and what I've implemented, is using only()
for this purpose. QuerySet.only()
and QuerySet.defer()
appear to silently ignore requests to defer the PK: if you do Book.objects.only('title')
, both title
and the primary key are fetched. What I've implement will follow that convention when the RawQuery is executed directly, but leave the PK out in subqueries when applicable, so that things like Author.objects.get(pk__in=raw_book_query.only('author_id'))
work as expected.
Supporting only()
requires a pretty big change to RawQuery, and I feel like it might be all a bit too tricky - it's all contained in the most recent commit so can be easily rolled back if necessary. Keen to know what others think.
Using only()
also doesn't work in SQLite currently, due to #21603.
- If the query is of the form NOT IN, then we need to also filter out null values, otherwise no results are returned if the raw query contains a single null (NOT IN is weird...)
This is taken into account in the patch - subqueries are always filtered for nulls. This will be a database no-op in the common case of selecting a not-null primary key.
- Does the wrapping of the subquery into (select field from (raw_query) where field is not null) cause performance problems? It could be possible that this prevents the DB's optimizer from working correctly.
Postgres does the right thing and as far as I can read SQLite's query planner, that does too. Have not tried any other backends yet.
- If the query doesn't select the required column (that is, it is deferred), we don't have any way to know that. This seems like a documentation issue, but worth mentioning.
The patch in its current state sidesteps this to some degree, in that including the primary key is already a stated requirement of the queries passed to RawQuerySet. However, at the moment you just get an error back from the database backend, instead of the InvalidQuery Django raises when evaluating a pk-less raw query. I think this is acceptable if documented.
Change History (10)
comment:1 by , 11 years ago
Triage Stage: | Unreviewed → Accepted |
---|
comment:2 by , 10 years ago
Patch needs improvement: | set |
---|
comment:3 by , 5 years ago
This should be as easy as implementing RawQuery.as_sql
to return (self.sql, self.params)
and setting has_select_fields=True
as class attribute.
comment:4 by , 2 years ago
Any news? This is a must if you want to optimize subqueries that cannot be generated by orm
comment:5 by , 2 years ago
Andreas, if this is something you'd like to see in Django you could give a shot submitting a PR based on the approach described in comment:3
Something along these lines, with regression tests, should get you almost all the way there
-
django/db/models/sql/query.py
diff --git a/django/db/models/sql/query.py b/django/db/models/sql/query.py index c2a71ff589..4845ae9e90 100644
a b def get_children_from_q(q): 82 82 class RawQuery: 83 83 """A single raw SQL query.""" 84 84 85 has_select_fields = True 86 85 87 def __init__(self, sql, using, params=()): 86 88 self.params = params 87 89 self.sql = sql … … def _execute_query(self): 151 153 self.cursor = connection.cursor() 152 154 self.cursor.execute(self.sql, params) 153 155 156 def as_sql(self, compiler, connection): 157 return self.sql, self.params 158 154 159 155 160 ExplainInfo = namedtuple("ExplainInfo", ("format", "options"))
comment:6 by , 2 years ago
Owner: | changed from | to
---|---|
Status: | new → assigned |
comment:7 by , 12 months ago
Hi!
Is this still a thing? I had a similar need recently and solved it by using RawSQL:
from django.db.models.expressions import RawSQL NamedCategory.objects.create(id=1, name="first") NamedCategory.objects.create(id=2, name="second") NamedCategory.objects.create(id=3, name="third") NamedCategory.objects.create(id=4, name="fourth") query = DumbCategory.objects.filter( id__in=RawSQL("SELECT id FROM queries_dumbcategory WHERE id >= %s", params=[3]) ) self.assertEqual(set(query.values_list("id", flat=True)), {3, 4}) print(query.query)
this works as expected and prints out
SELECT "queries_dumbcategory"."id" FROM "queries_dumbcategory" WHERE "queries_dumbcategory"."id" IN (SELECT id FROM queries_dumbcategory WHERE id >= 3)
which confirms that the raw subquery was embedded.
Is there something that would make it better or more useful by using RawQuerySet?
comment:8 by , 12 months ago
comment:9 by , 12 months ago
The submitted report was about making RawQuerySet
work but if RawSQL
works, and didn't exist at the time when this report was created 10 years ago, I'd be inclined to close this one as wontfix at this point.
comment:10 by , 12 months ago
Cc: | added |
---|
Sorry for not responding to this ticket sooner.
I think the patch is a bit too invasive for this ticket. We only need support for
somefield__in=rawqs
. It would be hopefully possible to just alter the way how the SQL is generated when used in anin
lookup. In particular there shouldn't be any needI wonder if it would be better to just add support for
qs.filter(somefield__in=RawQuery(sql_str, params))
(and also do the same for other lookup types if at all possible). This would be a lot easier to support (actually, this will be likely extremely easy to do after #14030). Of course, this doesn't allow one to use an existing raw query.If this could be implemented with just wrapping the query in subquery when used from
__in
lookup, then I think supportingsomefield__in=rawqs
directly is OK. If not, then lets focus on adding support forsomefield__in=RawQuery(sql_str, params)
. In other words, the current patch seems too complicated for the added feature.