ibatis-user-java mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From chris.mccau...@gsa.gov
Subject RE: iBATIS and Batch
Date Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:59:00 GMT
That is what we did, and I ask because the main reason we are batching is 
for performance...

Ideally, though, I would prefer not to, as the table is determined by the 
data being inserted/updated.

what we may also do in this case is try to merge the varied  tables and 
create indexes/views to help in other areas.

Thanks for the response.


Thank you, 
Christopher






"Clinton Begin" <clinton.begin@gmail.com> 
02/29/2008 10:58 AM
Please respond to
user-java@ibatis.apache.org


To
user-java@ibatis.apache.org
cc

Subject
RE: iBATIS and Batch






Unfortunately no... that’s possibly something we can consider for future 
versions.
 
The challenge is that some people have the exact opposite problem.  They 
need the statements to maintain the order of execution.  When initially 
deciding who to help, I decided that preserving the order of execution was 
more important than performance.  I also assumed that if you’re using a 
mixed order of heterogeneous statements, you could probably find a way to 
order them by type and send them through to make the most of batching. 
Whereas the opposite wouldn’t be true, as if I always just reordered the 
statements for the sake of performance – there would be no way back.   I 
suppose we could support it as an option, but before that I have to ask:
 
Can you reorder your statements?  If not, why not?
 
Clinton
 
 
 
 
 
From: chris.mccauley@gsa.gov [mailto:chris.mccauley@gsa.gov] 
Sent: February-29-08 8:47 AM
To: user-java@ibatis.apache.org
Subject: iBATIS and Batch
 

Recently we have been implementing batched SQL calls using iBatis through 
JDBC. 

IT appears that iBatis will reorganize batch statements into homogenous 
calls and treat them as separate batches.... 

The problem is that is if you do not serially add the homogenous 
statements, each 'change' from homogeneity results in a separate batch... 

Does this sound correct?  Is there something we can do to control the 
batching of heterogeneous calls? 



Thank you, 
Christopher

Mime
View raw message