db-jdo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig L Russell <craig.russ...@oracle.com>
Subject Re: Fetch configuration
Date Wed, 14 Jul 2010 19:29:13 GMT

On Jul 14, 2010, at 7:53 AM, Matthew Adams wrote:

> Seems like a good idea.  Could foreign keys be considered the same  
> as basic
> fields for the purposes of the default fetch group?  That is,  
> fetched by
> default unless the user says don't fetch?

That's where I would start. We need to decide whether this is just a  
relational database issue and use mapping metadata or if it's a  
general datastore issue and use jdo metadata. In other words, we could  
put columns into the fetch group or define a new jdo metadata concept  
to describe "the many-to-one artifacts that aren't visible as fields  
but are required to instantiate relationships".
>
> I assume that if an object is loaded using a fetch group that doesn't
> include foreign keys and the foreign key field is dereferenced, the  
> impl
> would go back to the datastore and load the referenced object's  
> foreign key
> via the referencing object's key (simple lazy loading).

Actually, what I expect the implementation to do is to load the  
referenced object directly using a join of the primary table (where  
t0.pk = ?) with the referenced table (and t0.fk = t1.pk). One round  
trip to the datastore instead of two.

But a compliant implementation can eagerly load the foreign keys  
today, since there's nothing in the spec to prohibit it.

I think this would be a good feature to discuss via JIRA. There are  
specification issues as well as technical issues to work through.

> What's the
> behavior of a JDO impl that supports change of identity if I load an  
> object
> that uses application identity with a fetch group that doesn't include
> foreign keys of direct relationships, I then change the identity  
> value of
> the referencing object, and then I dereference a direct relationship  
> that
> was not loaded?  The impl would not have a way to get back to the  
> datastore
> to get the referenced object because the referencing object's key  
> has been
> changed.

I'd expect that the behavior would depend on whether the change of pk  
was flushed or not. If not flushed, the original pk is still visible  
in the datastore. If flushed, the changed pk is visible (along with  
all the consequent fk's that refer to the changed pk).

> It seems to me that a dumb implementation should throw
> JDOUserException; a smart impl could cache the original value of the
> referencing object's key if changed during the transaction and use the
> cached id value to go get the referenced foreign key & object.  I  
> could see
> this as being a JDO option:
> javax.jdo.option.LazilyLoadDirectRelationshipWithoutLoadedForeignKey.

I think that an impl that supports change of pk should also be able to  
handle this case without being explicit about it.

Craig
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 2:37 AM, Andy Jefferson  
> <andy@datanucleus.org>wrote:
>
>> Post from 25 August 2008 by Craig.
>>
>>>
>> http://openjpa.apache.org/docs/latest/manual/manual.html#ref_guide_fetch_im
>>> pl says that "Even when a direct relation is not eagerly fetched,
>>> OpenJPA selects the foreign key columns and caches the values.  
>>> This way
>>> when you do traverse the relation, OpenJPA can often find the  
>>> related
>>> object in its cache, or at least avoid joins when loading the  
>>> related
>>> object from the database." - that's very kind, but may be we have an
>>> Entity with lots of foreign key columns and I KNOW I only want a  
>>> list
>>> showing a few attributes, and I KNOW that the direct relations  
>>> won't be
>>> traversed (say because the Entites are detached, may be). Is there  
>>> any
>>> way to configure OpenJPA to NOT eagerly fetch direct relations,  
>>> unless
>>> they are explicitly part of the Fetch Group? Actually what I'd  
>>> want is
>>> to be able to by default not include foreign key columns, but have  
>>> a way
>>> to explicitly include them - which is not the same as having the  
>>> field
>>> as part of the FetchGroup (that will lead to a JOIN, I may just  
>>> want to
>>> control whether or not to selects the foreign key column).
>>>
>>> Currently we don't have the notion in JDO of fetching key values of
>>> relationships, just fetching the targets of these keys.
>>> Would it be useful to consider adding to the JDO specification the
>>> ability to specify fetching the keys for relationships and not the
>>> relationships themselves? This would probably include adding some
>>> metadata to fetch-group and to FetchGroup.
>>
>> Just seen a need for this also, bit late I know ;-)
>> Perhaps add something in JDO3.1 ?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Andy
>> DataNucleus (http://www.datanucleus.org)
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> mailto:matthew@matthewadams.me
> skype:matthewadams12
> yahoo:matthewadams
> aol:matthewadams12
> google-talk:matthewadams12@gmail.com<google-talk%3Amatthewadams12@gmail.com 
> >
> msn:matthew@matthewadams.me <msn%3Amatthew@matthewadams.me>
> http://matthewadams.me
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/matthewadams

Craig L Russell
Architect, Oracle
http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@oracle.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!


Mime
View raw message