On 6 Nov 2018, at 02:47, 'Ivan Anishchuk' via Django developers (Contributions
to Django itself) wrote:
> How about some field that intelligently guesses the table size and looks
> either like default select or like raw id field depending on that?
Yes, that would be interesting.
I implemente
Well, I did personally encounter this issue more than a couple times on
several projects. In most cases simply switching to raw id or read only
where required works fine however it does add additional maintenance
overhead for projects that started small and at some point database grows
and some adm
Hello,
The default widget is fine for configuration tables with no more than
a few dozen values.
In my experience, I rarely encountered use cases for editing foreign keys to
very large tables in the admin.
Readonly or autocomplete are good choices.
Best regards,
--
Aymeric.
> On 17 Oct
raw_id_fields can be a bit confusing to people. Have you tried the new
autocomplete_fields? It's almost as easy to use as a select field, and it
should help solve the problem. However, it's not as easy to make the
default (because it requires specifying search_fields on the related model)
On Wed,
One last note: M2M could also benefit from this, and could continue to look
for `filter_horizontal` and not use a raw IDs field in those cases.
On Wednesday, October 17, 2018 at 11:59:43 AM UTC-4, Yo-Yo Ma wrote:
>
> I have yet to ever come across a situation where the default
> field is more u
I have yet to ever come across a situation where the default field
is more useful than the raw ID field, pertaining foreign key fields in the
admin.
I have, however, personally witnessed a major publishing company bring
their production app servers to a halt (out of memory) due to Django
att
