i'm working on a project (written in Django) which has only a few entities, but many rows for each entity.
In my application i have several static "reports", directly written in plain SQL. The users can also search the database via a generic filter form. Since the target audience is really tech-savvy and at some point the filter doesn't fit their needs, i think about creating a query language for my database like YQL or Jira's advanced search.
I found http://sourceforge.net/projects/littletable/ and http://www.quicksort.co.uk/DeeDoc.html, but it seems that they only operate on in-memory objects. Since the database can be too large for holding it in-memory, i would prefer that the query is translated in SQL (or better a Django query) before doing the actual work.
Are there any library or best practices on how to do this?
Writing such a DSL is actually surprisingly easy with PLY, and what ho—there's already an example available for doing just what you want, in Django. You see, Django has this fancy thing called a Q object which make the Django querying side of things fairly easy.
At DjangoCon EU 2012, Matthieu Amiguet gave a session entitled Implementing Domain-specific Languages in Django Applications in which he went through the process, right down to implementing such a DSL as you desire. His slides, which include all you need, are available on his website. The final code (linked to from the last slide, anyway) is available at http://www.matthieuamiguet.ch/media/misc/djangocon2012/resources/compiler.html.
Reinout van Rees also produced some good comments on that session. (He normally does!) These cover a little of the missing context.
You see in there something very similar to YQL and JQL in the examples given:
groups__name="XXX" AND NOT groups__name="YYY"
(modified > 1/4/2011 OR NOT state__name="OK") AND groups__name="XXX"
It can also be tweaked very easily; for example, you might want to use groups.name rather than groups__name (I would). This modification could be made fairly trivially (allow . in the FIELD token, by modifying t_FIELD, and then replacing . with __ before constructing the Q object in p_expression_ID).
So, that satisfies simple querying; it also gives you a good starting point should you wish to make a more complex DSL.
I've faced exactly this problem - a large database which needs searching. I made some static reports and several fancy filters using django (very easy with django) just like you have.
However the power users were clamouring for more. I decided that there already was a DSL that they all knew - SQL. The question was how to make it secure enough.
So I used django permissions to give the power users permission to make SQL queries in a new table. I then made a view for the not-quite-so-power users to use these queries. I made them take optional parameters. The queries were run using Python's lower level DB-API which django is using under the hood for its ORM anyway.
The real trick was opening a read only database connection to run these queries just to make sure that no updates were ever run. I made a read only connection by creating a different user in the database with lower permissions and opening a specific connection for that in the view.
TL;DR - SQL is the way to go!
Depending on the form of your data, the types of queries your users need to use, and the frequency that your data is updated, an alternative to the pure SQL solution suggested by Nick Craig-Wood is to index your data in Solr and then run queries against it.
Solr is an added layer of complexity (configuration, data synchronization) but it is super-fast, can handle large datasets, and provides a (relatively) intuitive query language.
You could write your own SQL-ish language using pyparsing, actually. There is even pretty verbose example you could extend.
Related
Background:
I am developing a Django app for a business application that takes client data and displays charts in a dashboard. I have large databases full of raw information such as part sales by customer, and I will use that to populate the analyses. I have been able to do this very nicely in the past using python with pandas, xlsxwriter, etc., and am now in the process of replicating what I have done in the past in this web app. I am using a PostgreSQL database to store the data, and then using Django to build the app and fusioncharts for the visualization. In order to get the information into Postgres, I am using a python script with sqlalchemy, which does a great job.
The question:
There are two ways I can manipulate the data that will be populating the charts. 1) I can use the same script that exports the data to postgres to arrange the data as I like it before it is exported. For instance, in certain cases I need to group the data by some parameter (by customer for instance), then perform calculations on the groups by columns. I could do this for each different slice I want and then export different tables for each model class to postgres.
2) I can upload the entire database to postgres and manipulate it later with django commands that produce SQL queries.
I am much more comfortable doing it up front with python because I have been doing it that way for a while. I also understand that django's queries are little more difficult to implement. However, doing it with python would mean that I will need more tables (because I will have grouped them in different ways), and I don't want to do it the way I know just because it is easier, if uploading a single database and using django/SQL queries would be more efficient in the long run.
Any thoughts or suggestions are appreciated.
Well, it's the usual tradeoff between performances and flexibility. With the first approach you get better performances (your schema is taylored for the exact queries you want to run) but lacks flexibility (if you need to add more queries the scheam might not match so well - or even not match at all - in which case you'll have to repopulate the database, possibly from raw sources, with an updated schema), with the second one you (hopefully) have a well normalized schema but one that makes queries much more complex and much more heavy on the database server.
Now the question is: do you really have to choose ? You could also have both the fully normalized data AND the denormalized (pre-processed) data alongside.
As a side note: Django ORM is indeed most of a "80/20" tool - it's designed to make the 80% simple queries super easy (much easier than say SQLAlchemy), and then it becomes a bit of a PITA indeed - but nothing forces you to use django's ORM for everything (you can always drop down to raw sql or use SQLAlchemy alongside).
Oh and yes: your problem is nothing new - you may want to read about OLAP
I am making a database with data in it. That database has two customers: 1) a .NET webserver that makes the data visible to users somehow someway. 2) a python dataminer that creates the data and populates the tables.
I have several options. I can use the .NET Entity Framework to create the database, then reverse engineer it on the python side. I can vice versa that. I can just write raw SQL statements in one or the other systems, or both. What are possible pitfalls of doing this one way or the other? I'm worried, for example, that if I use the python ORM to create the tables, then I'm going to have a hard time in the .NET space...
I love questions like that.
Here is what you have to consider, your web site has to be fast, and the bottleneck of most web sites is a database. The answer to your question would be - make it easy for .NET to work with SQL. That will require little more work with python, like specifying names of the table, maybe row names. I think Django and SQLAlchemy are both good for that.
Another solution could be to have a bridge between database with gathered data and database to display data. On a background you can have a task/job to migrate collected data to your main database. That is also an option and will make your job easier, at least all database-specific and strange code will go to the third component.
I've been working with .NET for quite a long time before I switched to python, and what you should know is that whatever strategy you chose it will be possible to work with data in both languages and ORMs. Do the hardest part of the job in the language your know better. If you are a Python developer - pick python to mess with the right names of tables and rows.
i wonder wether there is a solution (or a need for) an ORM with Graph-Database (f.e. Neo4j). I'm tracking relationships (A is related to B which is related to A via C etc., thus constructing a large graph) of entities (including additional attributes for those entities) and need to store them in a DB, and i think a graph database would fit this task perfectly.
Now, with sql-like DBs, i use sqlalchemyś ORM to store my objects, especially because of the fact that i can retrieve objects from the db and work with them in a pythonic style (use their methods etc.).
Is there any object-mapping solution for Neo4j or other Graph-DB, so that i can store and retrieve python objects into and from the Graph-DB and work with them easily?
Or would you write some functions or adapters like in the python sqlite documentation (http://docs.python.org/library/sqlite3.html#letting-your-object-adapt-itself) to retrieve and store objects?
Shameless plug... there is also my own ORM which you may also want to checkout: https://github.com/robinedwards/neomodel
It's built on top of py2neo, using cypher and rest API calls under hood, i.e no dependency on gremlin.
There are a couple choices in Python out there right now, based on databases' REST interfaces.
As I mentioned in the link #Peter provided, we're working on neo4django, which updates the old Neo4j/Django integration. It's a good choice if you need complex queries and want an ORM that will manage node indexing as well- or if you're already using Django. It works very similarly to the native Django ORM. Find it on PyPi or GitHub.
There's also a more general solution called Bulbflow that is supposed to work with any graph database supported by Blueprints. I haven't used it, but from what I've seen it focuses on domain modeling - Bulbflow already has working relationship models, for example, which we're still working on- but doesn't much support complex querying (as we do with Django querysets + index use). It also lets you work a bit closer to the graph.
Maybe you could take a look on Bulbflow, that allows to create models in Django, Flask or Pyramid. However, it works over a REST client instead of the python-binding provided by Neo4j, so perhaps it's not as fast as the native binding is.
I have a script with several functions that all need to make database calls. I'm trying to get better at writing clean code rather than just throwing together scripts with horrible style. What is generally considered the best way to establish a global database connection that can be accessed anywhere in the script but is not susceptible to errors such as accidentally redefining the variable holding a connection. I'd imagine I should be putting everything in a module? Any links to actual code would be very useful as well. Thanks.
If you are working with Python and databases, you cannot afford not to look at SQLAlchemy:
SQLAlchemy is the Python SQL toolkit
and Object Relational Mapper that
gives application developers the full
power and flexibility of SQL.
It provides a full suite of well known
enterprise-level persistence patterns,
designed for efficient and
high-performing database access,
adapted into a simple and Pythonic
domain language.
I have built very complex databases with a surprisingly small amount of code (a few hundred lines). The schema definition is almost self-documenting, the objects used for the Object Relational Mapper are Plain Old Python Objects (i.e., what you already have), and the querying API is almost obvious. In addition, the documentation is excellent: many online examples, fully documented API, and an O'Reilly book which, while far from perfect, does take you from zero to dangerous in a few evenings.
If you don't want to use the Object Relational Mapper, you can always fall back to plain connections and literal SQL. Also, the code is portable and database independent (the same code will work with MySQL, Oracle, SQLite, and other database managers).
The Session object will automatically take care of the pooling (what you mention as your concern).
The best way to understand its power is probably to follow the tutorials obtained in the first result page of the Google query sqlalchemy tutorial.
Use a model system/ORM system.
I'm starting a web project that likely should be fine with SQLite. I have SQLObject on top of it, but thinking long term here -- if this project should require a more robust (e.g. able to handle high traffic), I will need to have a transition plan ready. My questions:
How easy is it to transition from one DB (SQLite) to another (MySQL or Firebird or PostGre) under SQLObject?
Does SQLObject provide any tools to make such a transition easier? Is it simply take the objects I've defined and call createTable?
What about having multiple SQLite databases instead? E.g. one per visitor group? Does SQLObject provide a mechanism for handling this scenario and if so, what is the mechanism to use?
Thanks,
Sean
3) Is quite an interesting question. In general, SQLite is pretty useless for web-based stuff. It scales fairly well for size, but scales terribly for concurrency, and so if you are planning to hit it with a few requests at the same time, you will be in trouble.
Now your idea in part 3) of the question is to use multiple SQLite databases (eg one per user group, or even one per user). Unfortunately, SQLite will give you no help in this department. But it is possible. The one project I know that has done this before is Divmod's Axiom. So I would certainly check that out.
Of course, it would probably be much easier to just use a good concurrent DB like the ones you mention (Firebird, PG, etc).
For completeness:
1 and 2) It should be straightforward without you actually writing much code. I find SQLObject a bit restrictive in this department, and would strongly recommend SQLAlchemy instead. This is far more flexible, and if I was starting a new project today, I would certainly use it over SQLObject. It won't be moving "Objects" anywhere. There is no magic involved here, it will be transferring rows in tables in a database. Which as mentioned you could do by hand, but this might save you some time.
Your success with createTable() will depend on your existing underlying table schema / data types. In other words, how well SQLite maps to the database you choose and how SQLObject decides to use your data types.
The safest option may be to create the new database by hand. Then you'll have to deal with data migration, which may be as easy as instantiating two SQLObject database connections over the same table definitions.
Why not just start with the more full-featured database?
I'm not sure I understand the question.
The SQLObject documentation lists six kinds of connections available. Further, the database connection (or scheme) is specified in a connection string. Changing database connections from SQLite to MySQL is trivial. Just change the connection string.
The documentation lists the different kinds of schemes that are supported.