["python","mysql","sqlalchemy"]
memory-efficient built-in SqlAlchemy iterator/generator?

I have a ~10M record MySQL table that I interface with using SqlAlchemy. I have found that queries on large subsets of this table will consume too much memory even though I thought I was using a built-in generator that intelligently fetched bite-sized chunks of the dataset: for thing in session.query(Things): analyze(thing) To avoid this, I find I have to build my own iterator that bites off in chunks: lastThingID = None while True: things = query.filter(Thing.id < lastThingID).limit(querySize).all() if not rows or len(rows) == 0: break for thing in things: lastThingID = row.id analyze(thing) Is this normal or is there something I'm missing regarding SA built-in generators? The answer to this question seems to indicate that the memory consumption is not to be expected.
Most DBAPI implementations fully buffer rows as they are fetched - so usually, before the SQLAlchemy ORM even gets a hold of one result, the whole result set is in memory. But then, the way Query works is that it fully loads the given result set by default before returning to you your objects. The rationale here regards queries that are more than simple SELECT statements. For example, in joins to other tables that may return the same object identity multiple times in one result set (common with eager loading), the full set of rows needs to be in memory so that the correct results can be returned otherwise collections and such might be only partially populated. So Query offers an option to change this behavior through yield_per(). This call will cause the Query to yield rows in batches, where you give it the batch size. As the docs state, this is only appropriate if you aren't doing any kind of eager loading of collections so it's basically if you really know what you're doing. Also, if the underlying DBAPI pre-buffers rows, there will still be that memory overhead so the approach only scales slightly better than not using it. I hardly ever use yield_per(); instead, I use a better version of the LIMIT approach you suggest above using window functions. LIMIT and OFFSET have a huge problem that very large OFFSET values cause the query to get slower and slower, as an OFFSET of N causes it to page through N rows - it's like doing the same query fifty times instead of one, each time reading a larger and larger number of rows. With a window-function approach, I pre-fetch a set of "window" values that refer to chunks of the table I want to select. I then emit individual SELECT statements that each pull from one of those windows at a time. The window function approach is on the wiki and I use it with great success. Also note: not all databases support window functions; you need Postgresql, Oracle, or SQL Server. IMHO using at least Postgresql is definitely worth it - if you're using a relational database, you might as well use the best.