Re: cache in memory
Re: cache in memory
- Subject: Re: cache in memory
- From: Chuck Hill <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 09:09:58 -0700
Yes, that is not what I expect to see. I don't recall ever having
tried a sort ordering on an fetch, you may have hit a bug there. I
have used qualifiers, but I probably have not checked the SQL generated
since WO 4.something. It is also possible that a bug has been
introduced for a qualified fetch.
Chuck
On May 8, 2005, at 5:41 PM, Mike Schrag wrote:
Here's a specific example from the debug logs (the queries are trimmed
to remove a bunch of cluttering column names, but the gist is the
same). In this example, Category is set to be Cache in Memory. So
you can see the first query is WO saying "hey you're accessing the
Category entity, let me load them all" and then the second query WO is
saying "I'll now ignore your request to be cached in memory and query
again!". Or am I insane :)
[2005-05-08 20:36:32 EDT] <WorkerThread6> === Begin Internal
Transaction
[2005-05-08 20:36:32 EDT] <WorkerThread6> evaluateExpression:
<com.webobjects.jdbcadaptor.FrontbasePlugIn$FrontbaseExpression:
"SELECT t0."CategoryID", t0."Name", t0."IsTopLevel" FROM "Category"
t0">
[2005-05-08 20:36:32 EDT] <WorkerThread6> 85 row(s) processed
[2005-05-08 20:36:32 EDT] <WorkerThread6> === Commit Internal
Transaction
[2005-05-08 20:36:32 EDT] <WorkerThread6> === Begin Internal
Transaction
[2005-05-08 20:36:32 EDT] <WorkerThread6> evaluateExpression:
<com.webobjects.jdbcadaptor.FrontbasePlugIn$FrontbaseExpression:
"SELECT t0."CategoryID", t0."Name", t0."IsTopLevel" FROM "Category" t0
WHERE t0."IsTopLevel" = 'true' ORDER BY t0."Name" COLLATE
INFORMATION_SCHEMA.CASE_INSENSITIVE ASC">
[2005-05-08 20:36:32 EDT] <WorkerThread6> 3 row(s) processed
[2005-05-08 20:36:32 EDT] <WorkerThread6> === Commit Internal
Transaction
On May 8, 2005, at 8:03 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
Unless something has changed, the docs are correct. The first
reference to
any of the entity's objects will fetch all such objects into memory.
Any
subsquent fetches or fired faults will only go as far as the snapshot
layer. There should be no further DB access. I've verified this
recently
with 5.2.3.
Are you perhaps using a fetch spec with "refreshes refetched objects"
set
to true? I'm not sure what would happen in that case.
Chuck
At 07:13 PM 08/05/2005 -0400, Mike Schrag wrote:
So the docs for "cache in memory" on an entity make it sound like WO
won't need to hit the database again after the first full load. I'm
not seeing this behavior at all, though, which leads me to believe
I've misunderstood this flag. Even with cache in memory, I still see
queries to retrieve entities of the particular type that i flagged.
What is the actual definition of this field?
ms
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
villag
e.net
This email sent to email@hidden
--
Practical WebObjects - a book for intermediate WebObjects developers
who want to increase their overall knowledge of WebObjects, or those
who are trying to solve specific application development problems.
http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects
--
Practical WebObjects - a book for intermediate WebObjects developers
who want to increase their overall knowledge of WebObjects, or those
who are trying to solve specific application development problems.
http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden