On 9/1/17 8:45pm, Nikita Timofeev wrote:
> ObjectSelect.query(Artist.class)
> .columns(Artist.ARTIST_NAME, artistCount)
> .having(Artist.ARTIST_NAME.like("a%"))
> .or(artistCount.gt(2L)) // this goes to having
> .select(context)
You are right. Since you can combine where() clauses with and/or and then do
the same with having(), it will be too hard for Cayenne to just look at some
expression and pull them apart into the right WHERE and HAVING sql components.
I forsee this will be a very common way to screw up your query. It seems that
some databases treat HAVING just like WHERE if there are no aggregates [1] but
I think that isn't the same for all database engines. And HAVING might be
slower if you could have used WHERE instead.
Ari
[1] https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms180199.aspx
--
-------------------------->
Aristedes Maniatis
GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A
