Return-Path: <abdullah.kauchali@isanusi.com>
Mailing-List: contact ibatis-user-java-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list ibatis-user-java@incubator.apache.org
Received: (qmail 50410 invoked by uid 99); 9 Feb 2005 15:32:41 -0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0
	tests=SPF_HELO_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
Received: from ctb-mesg6.saix.net (HELO ctb-mesg6.saix.net) (196.25.240.78)
  by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Wed, 09 Feb 2005 07:32:41 -0800
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (rndf-146-3-12.telkomadsl.co.za [165.146.3.12])
	by ctb-mesg6.saix.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BBB825E4
	for <ibatis-user-java@incubator.apache.org>;
 Wed,  9 Feb 2005 17:32:36 +0200 (SAST)
Message-ID: <420A2D14.7000504@isanusi.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 17:32:36 +0200
From: Abdullah Kauchali <abdullah.kauchali@isanusi.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ibatis-user-java@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: R: What is N+1
References: 
 <JBEEJACGOCCJLNHJPLOCIEKPCKAA.fabrizio.gianneschi@gruppoatlantis.com>
	 <420A1FFC.2030400@friendvu.com> <16178eb10502090704550bda0e@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <16178eb10502090704550bda0e@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Checked: Checked

Clinton,

I can see the point when friendlyVU (???) spoke about getting details of 
the appropriate parent. 
"Appropriate" being the operative word.  (Lazy loading)

In all our database applications, we have *seldom* required the need to 
work off a list of
Categories then require to display (use) all the children of the 
different Categories viz. all the
different products of the *different* Categories.  We never needed it 
somehow. 

What we have required, however, is the proces the other way round.  
Where we work off a list of Products
and while busy with them we require the details of their Categories.  
So, it is n+1 the other way
round???

Currently we are using a second select with a IN statement containing a 
comma delimited entries
of the unique parents.  We then do the "mapping" in code.

What are your thoughts on this?

Kind regards

Abdullah

Clinton Begin wrote:

>Vic,
>
>I'm not sure what you're point was, but N+1 selects is THE most common
>relational databases performance problem caused by application
>developers today.
>
>Understanding it is critical if you want to avoid making this mistake.
> Not every application will have the luxury of simply being 1:1
>Table:Screen.  In fact, I've almost never seen this to be the case in
>enterprise applications.
>
>Consider a 3 tier hierarchy like in JPetStore:  Categories -1---M-
>Products -1----M- Items.
>
>For illustration purposes, the number of queries to load this data
>with an immediate or lazy load strategy is:
>
>1 * count(categories) * count(Products)
>
><SNIPPED>
>  
>