Refs #20939 -- Moved subquery ordering clearing optimization to the _in lookup. #8417
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
timgraham
approved these changes
Apr 27, 2017
django/db/models/lookups.py
Outdated
charettes
force-pushed
the
simplify-in-subquery
branch
from
17ee71b to
3e80443
Compare
…_in lookup. Queries could potentially be resolved in cases where ordering matter.
charettes
force-pushed
the
simplify-in-subquery
branch
from
3e80443 to
e62ea0b
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
@timgraham I'm working on making
sql.Querycompletely implement the Expression API so we can remove a lot of the boiler plate inexpression.Subqueryand it made me realize some changes I made in c9159a0 should have been made inIn.process_rhs()instead.It only makes sense to clear ordering of a queryset when it's used in a
__inlookup.Sorry for the back and forth here. This should settle,
#20939's case :)