Live data from Hacker News

SQLAlchemy 2.0 Released

sqlalchemy.org

31–40 of 84 posts

Re: SQLAlchemy 2.0 Released

#31

SQLAlchemy's lightweight SQL wrapping was a revelation when I came across it, but I've come to rely a lot on Django's migration tooling, enough so to choose Django for projects. What do people using SQLAlchemy use for migrations?

Alembic is the most common tool paired with SQLAlchemy.

Re: SQLAlchemy 2.0 Released

#32
post #11

I learned the hard way that I need to always use SQLAlchemy. I used other Python ORMs before and has been bitten hard with random bugs.

I will always stand behind SQLAlchemy being one of the best designed ORMs around. It generates some of the best backend SQL for the chosen dialect and it’s separation behind low level “core” concepts and high level ORM concepts makes for the cleanest separation of concerns. Even if it can’t generate the best SQL for you, it’s bog-simple to fiddle with the core components to hint it in the proper direction.

Re: SQLAlchemy 2.0 Released

#33

SQLAlchemy's lightweight SQL wrapping was a revelation when I came across it, but I've come to rely a lot on Django's migration tooling, enough so to choose Django for projects. What do people using SQLAlchemy use for migrations?

Alembic

Re: SQLAlchemy 2.0 Released

#34
For a decade I avoided sqlalchemy, we finally got to use it last year and found it quite overwhelmingly complex and 1.4 documentation is messy. We had to use mixed styles.

I checked unified doc and it had improved but , still wall of texts.. quite hard to read. Readability count's.

Re: SQLAlchemy 2.0 Released

#36
post #34

For a decade I avoided sqlalchemy, we finally got to use it last year and found it quite overwhelmingly complex and 1.4 documentation is messy. We had to use mixed styles. I checked unified doc and it had improved but , still wall of texts.. quite hard to read. Readability count's.

What do you use instead?

Re: SQLAlchemy 2.0 Released

#37
post #19

I would urge people who have had issues with the documentation to give the 2.0 documentation a try. Many aspects of it have been completely rewritten, both to correctly describe things in terms of the new APIs as well as to modernize a lot of old documentation that was written many years ago. First off, SQLAlchemy's docs are pretty easy to get to, for a direct link just go to: https://docs.sqlalchemy.org/ It's an eso…

SQLAlchemy and your efforts are so amazing and appreciated. Thank you and the team for all of your hard work on 2.0 as well as the heroic effort that was put into 1.4 as a stepping stone for existing codebases!

Re: SQLAlchemy 2.0 Released

#38
post #19

I would urge people who have had issues with the documentation to give the 2.0 documentation a try. Many aspects of it have been completely rewritten, both to correctly describe things in terms of the new APIs as well as to modernize a lot of old documentation that was written many years ago. First off, SQLAlchemy's docs are pretty easy to get to, for a direct link just go to: https://docs.sqlalchemy.org/ It's an eso…

Pandas had a docs sprint awhile back. Are the DOCs issues labeled?

Re: SQLAlchemy 2.0 Released

#39
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Check out pugsql, we switched from SQLAlchemy to that because the former was overkill, and way too complex.

I find ORM models useful for type checking and migrations, what is your experience for this with pugsql?

At the risk of sounding flippant (which I promise is not the intention), if I care about type safety I don’t use python.

Re: SQLAlchemy 2.0 Released

#40
If you use pandas with SQLAlchemy, you should be aware that pandas might not be fully compatible with SQLAlchemy 2.0 yet.

Some github issues:

https://github.com/pandas-dev/pandas/issues/40686

https://github.com/pandas-dev/pandas/issues/40460

I'm not actively following how compatible pandas has become, but you should absolutely test your code if you want to upgrade to 2.0.

Post reply on HN